r 


UNIVERSII'Y  OF  CALiFORlNIA  LIBRARY 


{ 


LIBRARY 


University  of  California. 


Class 


?3iV 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

Microsoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/famousspeechesOOpaulrich 


Famous  Speeches 


SELECTED     AND      EDITED, 
WITH    INTRODUCTORY   NOTES 


BY 

HERBERT    PAUL 

Author  of   "  The  Life  of  Frotule,"  etc. 


BOSTON 

LITTLE,  BROWN,  AND  COMPANY 

1911 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

PREFACE ix 

CROMWELL 

Editor's  Note  ....  ...     1 

Speech  Delivered  September  17th,  1656      .         .         .3 

SIR   ROBERT  WALPOLE 

Editor's  Note 32 

The  Peerage  Bill,  House  of  Commons,  December  8th, 
1719        . 33 

WILLIAM   PITT,    EARL   O  F  CHATHAM 

Editor's  Note 40 

Reply  to  Horace  Walpole,  House  of  Commons,  1740      43 
•  Speech  in  Support  of  Lord  Limerick's  Second  Motion, 

House  of  Commons,  1742 52 

Speech  on  Sir  W.  Yonge's  Motion  Respecting  the 

Hanoverian  Troops,  House  of  Commons.  1742  .      53 

On  the  Right  to  Tax  America,  House  of  Commons, 
1766 .57 

BURKE 

Editor's  Note  61 

Conciliation  with  America,  House  of  Commons,  March 
22nd,  1775 62 

WILLIAM   PITT 

Editor's  Note  120 

Abolition  of  Slave  Trade,  House  of  Commons,  April 

2nd,  1792 .125 

Roman  Catholic  Emancipation,  House  of  Commons, 

May  13th,  1805 155 

V 


r>  >•!  n>  o  r;  Q 


vi  CONTENTS 

PAOK 

CHARLES    JAMES    FOX 

Editor's  Note  165 

Peace  with  France,  House  of  Commons,  February  3rd, 
1800 166 

SHERIDAN 

Editor's  Note  210 

The  Trial  of  Warren  Hastings.    Passages  from  the 
Speech  in  Summing  up  the  Evidence  on  the  Second 
Article  of  Charge,  relating  to  the  Begums  of 
OuDE,  June  3rd,.  6th,  10th,  13th,  1788      .         .         .212 
Reply  to  Lord  Mornington,  1794     ....     225 

HENRY   GRATTAN 

Editor's  Note 230 

Roman  Catholic  Emancipation,  House  of  Commons, 
May  13th,  1805 230 

CANNING 

Editor's  Note  255 

On     the     Recognition    of    the    South     American 
Republics,  House  of  Commons,  June  15th,  1824        .     257 

DANIEL  O'CONNELL 

Editor's  Note  263 

State  of  Ireland,  House  of  Commons,  February  5th, 
1833 264 

SIR    ROBERT   PEEL 

Editor's  Note  293 

Resignation  of  Ministers,  House  of  Commons,  June 
29th,    1846 295 

RICHARD   COBDEN 

Editor's  Note  311 

Free  Trade,  House  of  Commons,  March  13th,  1845        312 


CONTENTS  vii 


PAGK 


ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

Editor's  Note  334 

Address  Delivered  at  the  Dedication  of  the  Cemetery 

AT  Gettysburg,  November  19th,  1863       .         .         .     335  — 
Address  at  his  Second  Inauguration,  March  4th,  1865    336 

BENJAMIN   DISRAELI 

Editor's  Note 338 

Berlin  Treaty,  House  of  Lords,  July  18th,  1878        .     340 

JOHN   BRIGHT 

Editor's  Note  361 

Russia  :  Negotiations  at  Vienna,  House  of  Commons, 

February  23rd,  1855 364 

Tax  Bills.     Power  of  the  House  of  Lords,  House 

OF  Commons,  July  6th,  1860 370 

ROBERT   LOWE 

Editor's  Note 392 

Representation  of  the  People  Bill,  House  of  Commons, 
May  31st,  1866 393 

GLADSTONE 

Editor's  Note  419 

The  Eastern  Question,  House  of  Commons,  May  7th, 
1877 421 


PREFACE 

A  SELECTION  of  Speeches  ought  to  include  specimens  of  every 
class,  so  that  no  kind  of  oratory  should  be  altogether  un- 
represented. There  have  always  been,  perhaps  in  the  nature 
of  the  case  there  must  always  be,  at  least  two  forms  of  rhetoric, 
often  typified  by  the  examples  of  Demosthenes  and  Cicero. 
There  is  the  keen,  terse,  argumentative  style,  to  be  found 
in  the  great  Athenian.  There  is  the  elaborate,  or  ornamental, 
decorative  kind,  of  which  Cicero  was  the  most  consummate 
master,  which  aims  less  at  the  achievement  of  an  immediate 
object  than  at  the  production  of  a  general  result.  Neither 
kind  can  be  excluded  from  any  really  representative  series. 
Yet  it  must  not  be  supposed  that  the  two  sorts  of  speaking 
can  always  be  separated,  or  that  they  are  never  found  in 
the  same  speech.  There  must  be  some  general  proposition 
at  the  back  of  every  practical  scheme.  There  must  be  some 
particular  inference  to  be  drawn  from  every  general  rule. 
Much  as  the  characters  of  speeches  may  vary,  they  have 
the  conmion  element  of  being  all  made  for  persuasion.  A 
speech  which  does  not  persuade  is  useless.  There  are,  how- 
ever, examples  of  the  eloquence  which  results  from  intense 
personal  conviction,  and  has  no  ulterior  motive,  the  eloquence 
of  feehng. 

We  must  bear  in  mind  that  between  means  and  ends  the 
relation  varies  within  the  compass  of  human  ingenuity.  There 
is  nothing  to  restrict  the  range  of  oratorical  fancy  or  caprice 
except  the  necessity  of  aiming  to  produce  an  influence  upon 
opinion,  or  to  justify  the  speaker's  own  beUef.  All  other 
objects  must  be  subservient  to  those  then.  We  have  to  con- 
sider how  best  to  represent  the  various  and  competing  forms 
of  a  delicate  and  complicated  art.  The  resources  of  the 
English  language  have  been  developed  in  all  sorts  of  ways 


X  PREFACE 

for  the  purpose  of  proving  a  point,  or  spreading  an  idea. 
Equal  degrees  of  excellence  may  be  reached  by  different 
methods,  and  it  cannot  be  said  that  one  is  always  good,  or 
that  another  is  always  bad.  We  must,  therefore,  before 
estimating  a  speech,  consider  the  circumstances  in  which 
it  was  delivered,  and  the  purpose  to  which  it  was  directed. 
This  obligation  does  not  preclude  the  necessity  of  confining 
a  selection  to  specimens  of  acknowledged  merit  and  power. 
The  best  examples  of  each  kind  are  required  to  illustrate  its 
intrinsic  excellences  and  characteristic  dangers. 

Here  the  best  speaking  has  always  tended  in  the  direction 
of  debate.  Parliamentary  Government  is  government  by 
speaking,  and  therefore  turns  speeches  towards  the  goal 
of  practical  administration.  A  British  statesman  must 
be  prepared  to  criticise  what  his  opponent  may  do,  and  to 
defend  what  he  has  done  himself.  Even  great  orations  which 
take  an  enlarged  view  of  general  principles  and  ideas  have 
usually  been  delivered  in  support  of  definite  and  particular 
measures.  Political  oratory,  which  makes  up  a  very  large 
proportion  of  the  whole,  is  profoundly  coloured  by  the  fact 
that  public  men  in  office,  and  public  men  out  of  it,  are  con- 
stantly arguing  questions  of  policy  from  the  administrative 
point  of  view.  It  is  obvious  that  a  system  of  this  kind  trains 
the  logical  as  well  as  the  rhetorical  faculties,  and  also  gives 
a  turn  to  political  controversy  which  it  would  not  otherwise 
possess.  Both  in  Parliament  and  on  the  platform  there  is 
a  constant  appeal  to  public  opinion,  not  so  much  upon  abstract 
issues  as  upon  the  merits  or  defects  of  rival  plans  or  schemes. 
Before  the  days  of  Pitt  and  Fox,  the  younger  Fox  and  the 
younger  Pitt,  the  constituent  bodies,  small  as  they  were, 
knew  very  little  of  what  passed  in  Parliament.  In  the  eight- 
eenth century  Parliamentary  speeches  were  addressed  almost 
entirely  to  Parliament  itself.  But  even  when  reporting 
became  full  and  general,  it  was  for  a  long  time  chiefly  through 
Parliament  that  English  politicians  approached  the  public, 


PREFACE  xi 

except  during  the  actual  progress  of  an  election.  Burke's 
most  famous  speeches  at  Bristol  are  the  speeches  of  a  candidate. 
Gladstone  may  perhaps  be  said  to  have  created  the  modem 
use  of  the  platform  as  a  vehicle  for  conveying  a  body  of  political 
doctrine  to  the  public  mind. 

But  though  the  style  of  the  platform  may  be  different  from 
the  style  of  Parliament,  the  main  purpose  remains  identical. 
The  object  of  the  speaker  is  to  procure  assent  for  a  conclusion, 
or  a  series  of  conclusions,  which  will,  if  adopted,  take  the  form 
of  legislative  enactment.  Moreover,  it  is  usually  the  aim  of 
one  speaker  to  answer  another.  Thus  the  whole  trend  and 
shape  of  rhetoric  in  this  country  are  forced  into  debate.  An 
explanatory  statement  of  positive  intentions  may,  no  doubt, 
be  found  in  the  speech  of  a  Minister  opening  a  Budget,  or 
introducing  a  Bill.  But  nine  speeches  in  every  ten,  perhaps 
ninety-nine  in  every  hundred,  are  directed  towards  answering 
or  confuting  some  previous  argument  or  criticism.  This  fact 
explains  a  great  deal  in  the  nature  and  appearance  of  the 
speeches  themselves.  They  are  not  essays,  intended  to  amuse 
or  instruct.  They  are  not  declamations,  designed  to  exhibit 
the  skill  and  dexterity  with  which  a  theme  may  be  adorned 
or  varied.  They  are  contributions  to  a  discussion  meant  for 
practical  results,  parts  of  a  controversy  which  aims  at  argu- 
mentative victory  in  a  definite  and  practical  field.  That  is 
why  the  motive  and  the  method  of  English  speeches  are  so 
closely  connected  as  to  be  almost  indistinguishable.  They  have 
no  other  aim  than  the  attainment  of  the  objects  which  they 
profess,  the  refutation  of  an  opposite  opinion,  or  the  confirma- 
tion of  a  definite  view.  They  cannot  be  compared  or  imder- 
stood  if  they  are  treated  merely  as  rhetorical  exercises,  or 
isolated  attempts  to  present  the  whole  of  a  case  from  the 
orator's  own  point  of  view. 

Of  all  modem  orators  who  have  swayed  large  masses  the 
greatest  was  Daniel  O'Connell.  In  the  House  of  Commons  he 
was  powerful  and  successful,  if  sometimes  too  violent,  and  also 


xii  PREFACE 

too  long,  for  the  taste  of  that  assembly.  But  on  the  hill- 
sides of  Ireland  he  was  supreme.  Although,  to  baffle  the 
reporters  of  the  Government,  he  once  spoke  in  Erse,  he  was  a 
master  of  sonorous  English,  and  of  the  phrases  which  appeal  to 
crowds.  His  legal  training  had  improved  his  natural  readi- 
ness, and  he  could  pass  with  consummate  dexterity  from  the 
most  vehement  vituperation  to  the  most  ingenious  argument. 
Having  fought  his  own  way  into  the  British  Parliament  by 
winning  Catholic  emancipation  for  his  countrymen  he  enjoyed 
the  doubtful  advantage  of  ending  where  other  people  began. 
When  he  took  up  repeal,  his  luck  deserted  him,  and  he  came 
to  be  regarded  as  a  mere  declaimer.  He  had  not  Gladstone's 
double  power  of  adapting  himself  both  to  Parliament  and  to 
the  platform  without  derogating  from  his  force  in  either 
position.  O'Connell  is  an  instance  of  the  effect  which  oratory 
may  produce  upon  minds  prepared  for  it.  But,  of  course,  a  great 
part  of  the  orator's  work  consists  in  the  process  of  preparation. 
To  remove  prejudice  may  be  quite  as  important  as  to  answer 
reasoning,  and  requires  qualities  of  a  different  kind.  There 
are  almost  as  many  types  of  speeches  as  there  are  types  of 
men.  For  the  audience  and  the  cause  combine  to  demand 
variety  of  treatment,  of  method,  and  of  tone.  Persuasion 
being  the  object,  the  modes  of  invoking  it  are  almost  infinitely 
various.  Confidence  and  plausibility  may  be  quite  as  important 
as  either  logic  or  rhetoric  in  achieving  the  desired  result.  For, 
despite  cynical  paradox,  it  may  be  doubted  whether  any 
speaker  has  convinced  a  representative  assembly,  or  a  public 
meeting,  of  what  he  did  not  believe  himself,  and  it  is  certain 
that  a  conclusion  must  be  made  palatable  as  well  as  probable 
before  it  will  be  adopted  by  a  multitude. 

Cicero  says  that  the  best  teacher  of  oratory  is  the  pen. 
Undoubtedly  a  ready  writer  has  the  great  advantage  of  a  large 
vocabulary,  and  a  stock  of  phrases  upon  which  he  can  always 
draw.  But  inasmuch  as  an  essay  is  a  very  different  thing  from 
a  speech,  there  must  be  qualities  which  speaking  calls  into 


PREFACE  xiii 

play  and  of  which  a  writer  has  no  need.  While  readiness, 
promptitude,  and  clearness  are  always  valuable,  they  assume 
very  different  proportions  in  spoken  and  written  material. 
No  one  expects  in  a  speech  the  sort  of  allusiveness  which  is 
appropriate  and  agreeable  in  an  essay.  Indeed  they  would 
be  out  of  place.  A  simple  directness  is  needed  in  speaking, 
much  as  it  may  sometimes  be  concealed  by  rhetorical  artifice. 
And  yet  an  element  of  the  unexpected  is  necessary  to  avoid 
fatiguing  an  audience.  Gladstone  was  an  adept  in  var5dng 
the  monotony  of  exposition  by  sudden  turns  of  thought  which 
relieved  the  mind  without  distracting  the  attention.  Even 
in  his  financial  statements  he  remembered  the  value  of  form, 
and  was  constantly  on  the  watch  to  find  opportunities  of 
departing  from  the  level  flatness  of  disquisition.  He  often 
gives  the  reason  for  mentioning  a  fact  in  the  sentence  after  it, 
not  in  the  sentence  before  it.  Of  course  this  is  a  feeble  and 
inadequate  example  of  a  delicate  art,  which  has  many  and 
various  ramifications.  The  main  point  is  that  the  hearers  of 
a  speech  should  be  as  little  conscious  as  possible  of  the 
machinery  by  which  they  are  guided  from  the  premises  to 
the  conclusion. 

The  most  eloquent  speeches,  however,  have  not  always 
been  the  most  successful,  and  there  is  an  interest  in  observing 
the  other  qualities  which  convince  either  representative 
assemblies  or  pubHc  meetings.  Walpole,  for  example,  and 
Peel,  though  they  could  hardly  be  called  eloquent,  possessed 
the  art  of  convincing  the  House  of  Commons  in  a  far  higher 
degree  than  most  eloquent  men. 

Fox  is  said  to  have  fused  reason  with  passion,  and  thus 
reached  the  highest  point  of  oratorical  power.  The  same 
encomium  might  be  passed  upon  Gladstone.  But  there  are 
other  forms  in  which  the  effect  of  great  speaking  may  be 
displayed.  Sometimes  sheer  argumentative  power  carries 
everything  before  it.  Sometimes  a  speech  succeeds  because 
it  exactly  embodies  the  prevailing  public  sentiment   of  the 


xiv  PREFACE 

time.  There  have  been  instances  where  the  intense  conviction 
of  the  speaker  produced  a  corresponding  behef  in  his  hearers. 
On  the  whole,  however,  it  may  be  said  with  as  near  an  approach 
to  certainty  as  the  subject  admits,  that  the  most  successful 
speeches  have  been  those  which  combined  logic  with  rhetoric 
so  as  to  convince  the  mind  while  delighting  the  ear.  It  is  in 
accordance  with  that  principle  that  these  selections  have 
been  made. 


FAMOUS     SPEECHES 


CROMWELL 


The  fragments  of  Cromwell's  speeches  which  remain  have 
been  industriously  collected  by  Cariyle.  Cromwell  was  no 
rhetorician.  His  meaning  has  to  be  gathered  from  the  impres- 
sive utterances  which  every  now  and  then  illuminate  the  dark 
passages  of  his  harangues.  In  this  way  Cariyle  has  interpreted 
sayings  which  had  a  clear  significance  at  the  time,  and  which 
have  their  place  in  the  history  of  the  period.  In  part  Crom- 
well spoke  the  current  language  of  Puritanism.  In  ^Dart  he 
expressed  his  own  deepest  convictions  as  they  came  from  his 
mind,  feeling  that  those  who  heard  him  would  understand  him. 
He  could  not  have  convinced  other  men  as  he  did  unless  he 
had  been  himself  assured  of  the  truth  that  he  felt  called  to 
proclaim.  The  obvious  sincerity  which  pervades  his  speeches 
explains  why  it  was  that  they  required  no  interpreter.  They 
were  adapted"  to  their  audience.  They  simply  set  forth  the 
message  he  had  to  deliver  in  the  terms  which  came  naturally 
to  his  hps,  the  Puritan  style  of  the  day.  When  he  said  that 
he  saw  the  hand  of  God,  he  meant  that  in  his  mind's  eye 
he  did  see  it.  He  felt  himself  to  be  under  the  constant  direc- 
tion of  Providence,  from  which  he  always  sought  guidance 
in  every  difficulty  and  danger.  He  did  not  weigh  objections 
against  duties,  and  then  take  the  easiest  line  of  action. 
He  followed  what  was  to  him  the  clear  path  of  conduct 
in  the  light  which  came  to  him  from  the  religion  of  his 
heart.  He  thought  of  Englishmen  and  Scotsmen  as  the 
chosen  people,  selected  to  uphold  the  cause  of  simple  and 
scriptural  faith.  Whether,  or  how  far,  he  deceived  himself  is 
not  the  question.     We  cannot  imderstand  his  speeches,  or  even 

1 

I— (2170) 


2  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

his  career,  unless  we  realise  that  his  Biblical  phraseology  was 
not  cant,  but  the  form  which  his  thoughts  naturally  assumed. 
If  he  found  it  impossible  to  govern  with  the  Parliament  after 
having  fought  and  conquered  for  it,  we  must  remember  that 
he  had  to  deal  with  an  absolutely  irresponsible  House  of 
Commons,  which  could  not  be  legally  dissolved  without  its 
own  consent.  When  the  Long  Parliament  had  been  forcibly 
dispersed,  he  had  to  try  constitutional  experiments  without 
adequate  time  or  means.  The  foresight  he  showed  was,  in  the 
circumstances,  marvellous.  In  giving  representation  to  the 
great  towns  he  anticipated  the  Reform  Act  of  1832.  But  though 
his  army  was  a  citizen  force,  as  exemplary  in  its  behaviour  at 
home  as  it  had  been  splendid  in  its  achievements  abroad,  he 
had  no  popular  support  behind  him.  The  tyranny  of  the 
Stuarts  was  forgotten  under  the  severe  rule  of  the  Saints,  and 
the  real  principles  of  freedom  were  understood  by  neither 
side.  Interference  with  national  customs  and  personal  habits 
was  equally  disagreeable  whether  it  were  exercised  in  the 
name  of  a  Protector,  a  Parliament,  or  a  King.  Cromwell 
made  England  a  great  power,  and  raised  her  military  reputa- 
tion higher  than  it  had  ever  stood  before.  He  did  not  claim, 
like  Charles  the  First,  the  right  to  tax  without'  a  Parliament, 
nor  did  he  ever  break  his  word.  But  he  was  as  little  of  a 
Constitutionalist  as  Charles  himself,  and  he  believed  in  the 
divine  right  of  a  Puritan  Council  as  firmly  as  any  cavalier 
believed  in  the  divine  right  of  kings.  His  idea  of  a  Parliament 
was  a  consultative  rather  than  a  legislative  body,  to  give 
advice,  and  to  assist  the  executive  government,  not  to  control 
the  force  that  was  guiding  the  people  for  their  good.  The 
original  opposition  to  Charles,  of  which  Pym  may  be  taken  as 
the  embodiment,  had  been  constitutional  and  parliamentary. 
The  Civil  War  turned  it  into  a  military  despotism,  mitigated 
and  subdued  by  the  personal  influence  of  Cromwell,  but  always  in 
the  background  as  the  ultimate  sanction  of  the  Commonwealth. 
Cromwell  did  not  wish  for  despotic  authority.  He  would 
have  preferred  a  union   of  sober  and  pious  men,    agreeing 


CROMWELL  3 

in  public  aims  as  in  private  character.  But  he  was  for 
dictatorship  against  anarchy. 

Speech  delivered  Sept.  17th,  1656^ 

Gentlemen,  When  I  came  hither  I  did  think  that  a  duty 
was  incumbent  upon  me  a  httle  to  pity  myself  ;  because,  this 
being  a  very  extraordinary  occasion,  I  thought  I  had  very 
many  things  to  say  unto  you,  "  and  was  somewhat  burdened 
and  straitened  thereby."  But  truly  now,  seeing  you  in  such 
a  condition  as  you  are,  I  think  I  must  turn  off  "  my  pity  " 
in  this,  as  I  hope  I  shall  in  everything  else — and  consider  you 
as  certainly  not  being  able  long  to  bear  that  condition  and  heat 
that  you  are  now  in.  **  So  far  as  possible,  on  this  large  subject, 
let  us  be  brief ;  not  studying  the  Art  of  Rhetoricians." 
Rhetoricians  whom  I  do  not  pretend  to  "  much  concern 
with  "  ;  neither  with  them,  nor  with  what  they  used  to  deal 
in  :  words  ! 

Truly,  our  business  is  to  speak  Things  !  The  Dispensation 
of  God  that  are  upon  us  do  require  it ;  and  that  subject  upon 
which  we  shall  make  our  discourse  is  somewhat  of  very  great 
interest  and  concernment,  both  for  the  glory  of  God,  and  with 
reference  to  His  Interest  in  the  world.  I  mean  this  peculiar. 
His  most  peculiar  Interest,  "  His  Church,  the  Communion  of 
the  faithful  Followers  of  Christ  "  ;  — and  that  will  not  leave 
any  of  us  to  exclude  His  general  Interest  which  is  the  concern- 
ment of  the  Living  People,  "  not  as  Christians  but  as  human 
creatures,"  within  these  three  Nations,  and  aU  the  Depend- 
encies there  upon.  I  have  told  you  I  should  speak  to  things  ; 
things  that  concern  these  Interests  :  The  Glory  of  God,  and 
His  Peculiar  Interest  in  the  world — which  **  latter  "  is  more 
extensive,  I  say  more  extensive,  than  the  People  of  all  three 
Nations  with  the  appurtenances,  or  the  countries  and  places, 
belonging  unto.  them. 

The  first  thing,  therefore,  that  I  shall  speak  to  is  That,  that 
is  the  first  lesson  of  Nature  ;  Being  and  Preservation.  As  to 
that  of  Being,  I  do  think  I  do  not  ill  style  it  the  jirst  considera- 
tion which  Nature  teacheth  the  Sons  of  Adam  ;  — and  then 

1  The  occasion  was  the  meeting  of  his  second  Parliament  which  he 
had  just  summoned.  The  words  between  inverted  commas  were  put 
in  by  Carlyle  to  bring  out  the  sense.  This  is  the  best  and  most  thor- 
oughly reported  of  Cromwell's  speeches.  It  gives  by  far  the  fullest 
idea  of  his  style. 


4  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

I  think  we  shall  enter  into  a  field  large  enough  when  we  come 
to  consider  that  of  Well-being.  But  if  Being  itself  be  not 
first  well  laid,  I  think  the  other  will  hardly  follow. 

Now  in  order  to  this,  to  the  Being  and  Subsistence  of  these 
Nations  with  all  their  Dependencies  ;  The  Conservation  of 
that,  "  Namely  of  our  National  Being,"  is  first  to  be  viewed 
with  respect  to  those  who  seek  to  undo  it,  and  so  make  it 
not  to  be  ;  and  then  very  naturally  we  shall  come  to  the  con- 
sideration of  what  will  make  it  be,  of  what  will  keep  its  being 
and  substance. 

"  Now  "  that  which  plainly  seeks  the  destruction  of  the 
Being  of  these  Nations  is,  out  of  doubt :  The  endeavour  and 
design  of  all  the  common  Enemies  of  them.  I  think  truly, 
it  will  not  be  hard  to  find  out  whose  those  Enemies  are  ;  nor 
what  has  made  them  so  !  I  think,  They  are  all  the  wicked  men 
in  the  world,  whether  abroad  or  at  home,  that  are  the  Enemies 
to  the  very  Being  of  these  Nations  ; — and  this  upon  a  common 
account,  from  the  very  enmity  that  is  in  them  "  to  all  such 
things."  Whatsoever  could  serve  the  glory  of  God  and  the 
interest  of  His  People, — which  they  see  to  be  more  eminently, 
yea  more  eminently  patronized  and  professed  in  this  Nation 
(we  will  not  speak  it  with  vanity)  than  in  all  the  Nations  in 
the  world  ;  this  is  the  common  ground  of  the  common  enmity 
entertained  against  the  prosperity  of  our  Nation,  against 
the  very  Being  of  it. — But  we  will  not,  I  think,  take  up  our 
time,  contemplating  who  these  enemies  are,  and  what  they 
are,  in  the  general  notion  ;  but  we  will  labour  to  specificate  our 
Enemies  ;  to  know  what  persons  and  bodies  of  persons  they 
practically  are  that  seek  the  very  destruction  and  Being  of 
these  Three  Nations. 

And  truly  I  would  not  have  laid  such  a  foundation  but  to 
the  end  I  might  very  particularly  communicate  with  you 
"  about  that  same  matter."  For  which,  "  above  others,"  I 
think,  you  are  called  hither  at  this  time  : — ThaLt  I  might  parti- 
cularly communicate  with  you  about  the  many  dangers 
these  Nations  stand  in,  from  Enemies  abroad  and  at  home  ; 
and  advise  with  you  about  the  remedies,  and  means  to 
obviate  these  dangers.  *'  Dangers  "  which, — say  I,  and  I 
shall  leave  it  to  you  whether  you  will  join  with  me  or  no, — 
strike  at  the  very  Being  and  "  vital  "  interest  of  these  Nations. 
And,  therefore,  coming  to  particulars,  I  will  shortly  represent 
to  you  the  estate  of  your  affairs  in  that  respect ;    in  respect 


CROMWELL  5 

"  namely  "  of  the  Enemies  you  are  engaged  with  ;  and  how 
you  come  to  be  engaged  with  those  Enemies,  and  how  they 
come  to  be,  as  heartily,  I  beUeve,  engaged  against  you. 

Why,  truly,  your  great  enemy  is  the  Spaniard.  He  is  a 
natural  enemy.  He  is  naturally  so ;  He  is  naturally  so 
throughout, — by  reason  of  that  enmity  that  is  in  him  against 
whatsoever  is  of  God.  Whatsoever  "is  of  God  "  which  is 
in  you  or  which  may  be  in  you  ;  contrary  to  that  which  his 
blindness  and  darkness,  led  on  by  superstition,  and  the  implicit- 
ness of  his  faith  in  submitting  to  the  See  of  Rome,  actuate 
him  unto  ! — with  this  King  and  State  I  say,  you  are  at  present 
in  hostility.  We  put  you  into  this  hostility,  you  will  give  us 
leave  to  tell  you  how.  For  we  are  ready  to  excuse  "  this  and  " 
most  of  our  actions, — and  to  justify  them  too,  as  well  as  to 
excuse  them, — upon  the  ground  of  Necessity.  "  And  "  the 
ground  of  Necessity,  for  justifying  of  men's  actions,  is,  above 
all,  considerations  of  instituted  Law  ;  and  if  this  or  any  other 
State  should  go  about, — as  I  know  they  never  will, — to  make 
Laws  against  Events,  against  what  may  happen,  "  then  " 
I  think  it  is  obvious  to  any  man,  they  will  be  making  Laws 
against  Providence  ;  events,  and  issues  of  things,  being  from 
God  alone,  to  whom  all  issues  belong. 

The  Spaniard  is  your  enemy  ;  and  your  enemy,  as  I  tell  you, 
naturally,  by  that  antipathy  which  is  in  him, — **  and  also  " 
providentially,  and  this  in  divers  respects.  You  could  not 
get  an  honest  or  honourable  Peace  from  him  ;  it  was  sought 
by  the  Long  Parliament  ;  it  was  not  attained.  It  could  not 
be  attained  with  honour  and  honesty.  I  say,  it  could  not  be 
attained  with  honour  and  honesty.  And  truly  when  I  say 
that,  "  I  do  not  say,"  He  is  naturally  throughout  an  enemy  ; 
an  enmity  is  put  into  him  by  God.  "  I  will  put  an  enmity 
between  thy  seed  and  her  seed  ;  "  which  goes  but  for  little 
among  statesmen,  but  is  more  considerable  than  all  things  ! 
And  he  that  considers  not  such  natural  enmity,  the  provi- 
dential enmity,  as  well  as  the  accidental,  I  think  he  is  not  well 
acquainted  with  Scripture  and  the  things  of  God.  And  the 
Spaniard  is  not  only  our  enemy  accidentally,  but  he  is  provi- 
dentially so  ;  God  having  in  His  wisdom  disposed  it  to  be, 
when  we  made  a  breach  with  the  Spanish  Nation  '*  long  ago." 

No  sooner  did  this  Nation  form  what  is  called  (unworthily) 
the  Reformed  Religion  after  the  death  of  Queen  Mary,  by  the 


6  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

Queen  Elizabeth  of  famous  memory, — we  need  not  be  ashamed 
to  call  her  so  ! — but  the  Spaniards'  design  became,  By  all 
unworthy,  unnatural  means,  to  destroy  that  Person,  and  to 
seek  the  ruin  and  destruction  of  these  Kingdoms.  For  me  to 
instance  in  particulars  upon  that  account,  were  to  trouble  you 
at  a  very  unseasonable  time  ;  there  is  a  Declaration  extant 
which  very  fully  hath  in  it  the  origin  of  the  Spaniard  venting 
himself  upon  this  Nation  ;  and  a  series  of  it  from  those  very 
beginnings  to  this  present  day.  But  his  enmity  was  partly 
upon  that  general  account  which  all  are  agreed  "  about." 
The  French,  all  the  Protestants  in  Germany,  all  have  agreed. 
That  his  design  was  the  empire  of  the  whole  Christian  World 
if  not  more  ; — and  upon  that  ground  he  looks,  "  and  hath 
looked,"  at  this  Nation  as  his  greatest  obstacle.  And  as  to 
what  his  attempts  have  been  for  that  end — I  refer  you  to  that 
Declaration,  and  to  the  observations  of  men  who  read  History. 
It  would  not  be  difhcult  to  call  to  mind  the  several  Assassina- 
tions designed  upon  that  Lady,  that  great  Queen  ;  the  attempts 
upon  Ireland,  the  Spaniards'  invading  of  it ;  their  designs  of 
the  same  nature  upon  this  Nation, — public  designs,  private 
designs,  all  manner  of  designs,  to  accomplish  this  great  and 
general  end.  Truly  King  James  made  a  Peace  ;  but  whether 
this  Nation,  and  the  interest  of  all  Protestant  Christians, 
suffered  not  more  by  that  Peace,  than  ever  by  Spain's  hostility, 
I  refer  to  your  consideration  ! 

Thus  a  State  that  you  can  neither  have  peace  with  nor 
reason  from, — that  is  the  State  with  which  you  have  enmity 
at  this  time,  and  against  which  you  are  engaged.  And  give 
me  leave  to  say  this  unto  you,  because  it  is  truth,  and  most 
men  know  it.  That  the  Long  Parliament  did  endeavour,  but 
could  not  obtain  satisfaction  "  from  the  Spaniard  "  all  the  time 
they  sat ;  for  their  Messenger  was  murdered  ;  and  when  they 
asked  satisfaction  for  the  blood  of  your  poor  people  unjustly 
shed  in  the  West  Indies  and  for  the  wrongs  done  elsewhere  ; 
when  they  asked  liberty  of  conscience  for  your  people  who 
traded  thither, — satisfaction  in  none  of  these  things  would  be 
given,  but  was  denied.  I  say,  they  denied  satisfaction  either 
for  your  Messenger  that  was  murdered,  or  for  the  blood  that 
was  shed,  or  for  the  damages  that  were  done  in  the  West 
Indies.  No  satisfaction  at  all ;  nor  any  reason  offered  why 
there  should  not  be  liberty  "  of  conscience  "  given  to  your 


CROMWELL  7 

people  that  traded  thither, — satisfaction  in  none  of  these 
things  would  be  given,  but  was  denied.  I  say,  they  denied 
satisfaction  either  for  your  Messenger  that  w^as  murdered,  or 
for  the  blood  that  was  shed,  or  the  damages  that  were  done  in 
the  West  Indies.  No  satisfaction  at  all ;  nor  any  reason  offered 
why  there  should  not  be  liberty  "  of  conscience  "  given  to  your 
people  that  traded  thither.  Whose  trade  was  very  consider- 
able there,  and  drew  many  of  your  people  thither  ;  and  begot 
an  apprehension  in  ws  **  as  to  their  treatment  there," — whether 
in  you  or  no,  let  God  judge  between  you  and  Himself.  I 
judge  not ;  but  all  of  us  know  that  the  people  who  went 
thither  to  manage  the  trade  there,  were  imprisoned.  We 
desired  "  but  "  such  a  liberty  as  *'  that  "  they  might  keep  their 
Bibles  in  their  pockets,  to  exercise  their  liberty  of  religion  for 
themselves,  and  not  be  under  restraint.  But  there  is  not 
liberty  of  conscience  to  be  had  "  from  the  Spaniard  "  ;  neither 
is  there  any  satisfaction  for  injuries,  nor  for  blood.  When 
these  two  things  were  desired,  the  Ambassador  told  us  **  It 
was  to  ask  his  Master's  two  eyes  "  ;  to  ask  both  his  eyes,  asking 
these  things  of  him  ! — 

Now  if  this  be  so,  why,  truly  then  here  is  some  little  founda- 
tion laid  to  justify  the  War  that  has  been  entered  upon  with 
the  Spaniard  !  And  not  only  so  ;  but  the  plain  truth  of  it  is — 
Make  any  peace  with  any  State  that  is  Popish  and  subjected 
to  the  determination  of  Rome  and  **  of  "  the  Pope  himself, — 
you  are  bound  and  they  are  loose.  It  is  the  pleasure  of  the 
Pope  at  any  time  to  tell  you,  that  though  the  man  is  mur- 
dered yet  his  murderer  has  got  into  sanctuary  !  And  equally 
true  is  it,  and  has  been  found  by  common  and  constant  experi- 
ence. That  Peace  is  but  to  be  kept  so  long  as  the  Pope  saith 
Amen  to  it.  We  have  not  "  Now  "  to  do  with  any  Popish 
State  except  France  :  and  it  is  certain  that  they  do  not  think 
themselves  under  such  a  tie  to  the  Pope  ;  but  think  themselves 
at  liberty  to  perform  honesties  with  nations  in  agreement  w^th 
them,  and  protest  against  the  obhgation  of  such  a  thing  as 
that, — "  of  breaking  your  word  at  the  Pope's  bidding."  They 
are  able  to  give  us  an  explicit  answer  to  anything  reasonably 
demanded  of  them  ;  and  there  is  no  other  Popish  State  we 
can  speak  of,  save  this  only,  but  will  break  their  promise  or 
keep  it  as  they  please  upon  these  grounds, — being  under  the  lash 
of  the  Pope,  to  be  by  him  determined,  *'  and  made  to  decide." 


8  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

In  the  time  when  Phihp  Second  was  married  to  Queen 
Mary,  and  since  that  time,  through  Spanish  power  and  instiga- 
tion, Twenty  thousand  Protestants  were  murdered  in  Ireland. 
We  thought,  being  denied  just  things, — we  thought  it  our  duty 
to  get  that  by  the  sword  which  was  not  to  be  had  otherwise  ! 
And  this  has  been  the  spirit  of  Enghshmen  ;  and  if  so,  certainly 
it  is,  and  ought  to  be,  the  spirit  of  men  that  have  higher  spirits  ! 
With  that  State  you  are  engaged.  And  it  is  a  great  and  power- 
ful State  ; — though  I  may  say  also,  that  with  all  other  Christian 
States  you  are  at  peace.  All  these  "  your  other  "  engagements 
were  upon  you  before  this  Government's  was  undertaken  : 
War  with  France,  Denmark, — nay,  upon  the  matter,  war,  **  or 
as  good  as  war,"  with  Spain  "  itself."  I  could  instance  how  it 
was  said  **  in  the  Long  Parliament  time,"  "  We  will  have  a 
war  in  the  Indies,  though  we  fight  them  not  at  home."  I  say, 
we  are  at  peace  with  all  other  Nations,  and  have  only  a  war 
with  Spain.  I  shall  say  somewhat  "  farther,"  to  you,  which 
will  let  you  see  our  clearness  "  as  "  to  that,  by  and  by. 

Having  thus  **  said,  we  are,"  engaged  with  Spain, — that  is 
the  root  of  the  matter  ;  that  is  the  party  that  brings  all  your 
enemies  before  you.  It  doth  :  for  so  it  is  now,  that  Spain 
has  espoused  that  interest  which  you  have  all  along  hitherto 
been  conflicting  with, — Charles  Stuart's  Interest.  And  I 
would  but  meet  the  gentleman  upon  a  fair  discourse  who  is 
willing  that  that  Person  should  come  back  again  ! — but  I  dare 
not  believe  any  in  this  room  is.  And  I  say  it  does  not  detract 
at  all  from  your  cause,  nor  from  your  ability  to  make  defence 
of  it.  That  God  by  His  providence  has  so  disposed  that  the 
King  of  Spain  should  espouse  that  Person.  And  I  say  **  far- 
ther," No  man  but  might  be  very  well  satisfied  that  it  is  not 
for  aversion  to  that  Person  ! — And  the  "  choosing  out  "  (as 
was  said  to-day)  "  A  Captain  to  lead  us  hack  into  Egypt," 
"  what  honest  man  has  not  an  aversion  to  that  ? — if  there  be 
such  a  place  ?  I  mean  metaphorically,  and  allegorically  such 
a  place  ;  **  if  there  be  "  that  is  to  say,  A  returning  "  on  the 
part  of  some  "  to  all  those  things  we  have  been  fighting  against, 
and  a  destroying  of  all  that  good  (as  we  had  some  hints  to-day) 
which  we  have  attained  unto —  ?  and  I  am  sure  my  Speech 
**  and  defence  of  the  Spanish  War  "  will  signify  very  little,  if 
such  grounds  go  not  for  good  !  Nay,  I  will  say  this  to  you. 
Not  a  man  in  England,  that  is  disposed  to  comply  with  Papists 


CROMWELL  d 

and  Cavaliers,  but  to  him  my  speech  here  is  the  greatest 
parable,  the  absurdest  discourse  !  And  in  a  word,  we  could 
\vish  they  were  all  where  Charles  Stuart  is,  all  who  declare 
that  they  are  of  that  spirit.  I  do,  with  all  my  heart ; — and  I 
would  help  them  with  a  boat  to  carry  them  over,  who  are  of 
that  mind  !  Yea,  and  if  you  shall  think  it  a  duty  to  drive  them 
over  by  Arms,  I  will  help  in  that  also  ! 

You  are  engaged  with  such  an  Enemy  ;  a  foreign  enemy, 
who  has  such  allies  among  ourselves  ; — this  last  said  hath  a 
little  vehemence  in  it,  but  it  is  well  worth  your  consideration. 

Though  I  seem  to  be  all  this  while  upon  the  justice  of  the 
business,  yet  my  design  is  to  let  you  see  the  dangers  **  and 
grand  crisis  "  this  Nation  stands  in  "  thereby."  All  the  honest 
interests  ;  yea  all  interests  of  the  Protestants  in  Germany, 
Denmark,  Helvetia,  and  the  Cantons,  and  all  the  interests  in 
Christendom,  are  the  same  as  yours.  If  you  succeed,  if  you 
succeed  well  and  act  well,  and  be  convinced  what  is  God's 
Interest,  and  prosecute  it,  you  will  find  that  you  act  for  a  very 
great  many  who  are  God's  own.  Therefore  I  say  that  your 
danger  is  from  the  Common  Enemy  abroad  ;  who  is  the  head 
of  the  Papal  Interest,  the  head  of  the  Antichristian  Interest, — 
who  is  so  described  in  Scripture,  so  forespoken  of,  and  so  fuUy, 
under  that  characteral  name  "  of  Antichrist  "  given  him  by 
the  Apostle  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  and  likewise  so 
expressed  in  the  Revelation  ;  which  are  sure  and  plain  things  ! 
Except  you  will  deny  the  truth  of  the  Scriptures,  you  must 
needs  see  that  that  State  is  so  described  in  Scripture  to  be 
Papal  and  Antichristian.  I  say,  with  this  Enemy,  and  upon 
this  account,  you  have  the  quarrel, — with  the  Spaniard. 

And  truly  he  has  an  Interest  in  your  bowels  ;  he  has  so. 
The  Papists  in  England, — they  have  been  accounted,  ever  since 
I  was  bom,  Spaniolised.  There  is  not  a  man  among  us  can 
hold  up  his  face  against  that.  They  never  regarded  France  ; 
they  never  regarded  any  other  Papist  State  where  a  "  hostile  " 
Interest  was,  "  but  Spain  only."  Spain  was  their  patron. 
Their  patron  all  along,  in  England,  in  Ireland  and  Scotland  ; 
no  man  can  doubt  of  it.  Therefore  I  must  needs  say,  this 
**  Spanish  "  Interest  is  also,  in  regard  to  your  home  affairs, 
a  great  source  of  your  danger.  It  is,  and  it  evidently  is  ;  and 
will  be  more  so, — upon  that  account  that  I  told  you  of  ;  He  hath 
espoused  Charles  Stuart  !   with  whom  he  is  fuUy  in  agreement ; 


10  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

for  whom  he  has  raised  Seven  or  Eight  Thousand  men, 
and  has  them  now  quartered  at  Bruges  ;  to  which  number  Don 
Juan  of  Austria  has  promised  that  as  soon  as  the  campaign 
is  ended,  which  it  is  conceived  will  be  in  about  five  or  six  weeks, 
he  shall  have  Four  or  Five  thousand  added.  And  the  Duke 
of  Neubuy,  who  is  a  Popish  Prince,  hath  promised  good  assist- 
ance according  to  his  power  ;  and  other  Popish  States  the  like. 
In  this  condition  you  are  with  that  State  **  of  Spain  "  :  and  in 
this  condition  thought  unavoidable  necessity  ;  because  your 
Enemy  was  naturally  an  enemy,  and  is  providentially  too 
become  so. 

And  now  farther, — as  there  is  a  complication  of  these  Inter- 
ests abroad,  so  there  is  a  complication  of  them  here.  Can  we 
think  that  Papists  and  Cavaliers  shake  not  hands  in  England  ? 
It  is  unworthy.  Unchristian,  Un-English-like,  **  say  you." 
Yes  ;  but  it  doth  serve  to  let  you  see,  and  for  that  end  I  tell 
it  you  that  you  may  see,  your  danger,  and  the  source  thereof. 
Nay,  it  is  not  only  thus,  in  this  condition  of  hostility,  that  we 
stand  towards  Spain  ;  and  towards  all  the  Interest  which 
would  make  void  and  frustrate  everything  that  has  been  doing 
for  you ;    namely  towards  the  Popish  Interests,  Papists  and 

Cavahers  ;   but  it  is  also That  is  to  say,  your  danger 

is  so  great,  if  you  will  be  sensible  of  it,  by  reason  of  Persons 
who  pretend  other  things  !  "  Pretend,  I  say  ;  "  yea  who, 
though  perhaps  they  do  not  all  suit  in  their  hearts  with  the 
said  "  Popish  "  Interest — yet  every  man  knows,  and  must 
know,  that  discontented  parties  are  among  us  somewhere  ! 
They  must  expect  backing  and  support  somewhere.  They 
must  end  in  Interest  of  the  Cavalier  at  the  long  run.  That 
must  be  their  support  ! — I  could  have  reckoned  this  in  another 
"  head."  But  I  give  you  an  account  of  things  as  they  arise 
to  me.  Because  I  want  to  declare  them  to  you  !  Not  dis- 
coursively,  in  the  oratorio  way  ;  but  to  let  you  see  the  matter 
of  fact, — to  let  you  see  how  the  state  of  your  affairs  stan(^ 

Certain  it  is,  there  was,  not  long  since,  an  endeavour  to  make 
an  Insurrection  in  England.  It  was  going  on  some  time  before 
it  broke  out.  It  was  so  before  the  last  Parliament  sat. 
"  Nay,"  it  was  so  not  only  from  the  time  of  the  undertaking 
of  this  Government ;  but  the  spirit  and  principle  of  it  did  work 
in  the  Long  Parliament  "  time."  From  that  time  to  this  hath 
there  been  nothing  but   enterprising  and  designing   against 


CROMWELL  11 

you.  And  this  is  no  strange  or  new  thing  to  tell  you : 
Because  it  is  true  and  certain  that  the  Papists,  the  Priests  and 
Jesuits  have  a  great  influence  upon  the  Cavaher  Party  ;  they 
and  the  Cavaliers  prevail  upon  the  discontented  spirits  of  the 
Nation, — who  are  not  all  so  apt  to  see  where  the  dangers  he, 
nor  to  what  the  management  of  affairs  tends.  Those  **  Papists 
and  Cavaliers  "  do  foment  all  things  that  tend  to  disservice  ; 
to  propagate  discontentments  upon  the  minds  of  men,  and  if 
we  would  instance,  in  particular,  those  that  have  manifested 
this,  we  could  tell  you  how  Priests  and  Jesuits  have  insinuated 
themselves  into  men's  society ;  pretending  the  same  things 
that  they  pretended  ;  whose  ends,  **  these  Jesuit  ends,"  have, 
out  of  doubt  been  what  I  have  told  you. 

We  had  that  insurrection.  It  was  intended  first  to  the 
assassination  of  my  person — which  I  would  not  remember 
as  anything  at  all  considerable  to  myself  or  to  you  ;  for  they 
would  have  had  to  cut  throats  beyond  human  calculation 
before  they  could  have  been  able  to  effect  their  design.  But 
you  know  it  very  well,  "this  of  the  assassination" ;  it  is  no  fable. 
Persons  were  arraigned  for  it  before  the  Parliament  sat ;  and 
tried,  and  upon  proof  condemned,  for  their  designs  to  cut  the 
throat  of  myself,  and  three  or  four  more  ;  whom  they  had 
singled  out  as  being,  a  little  beyond  ordinary,  industrious  to 
preserve  the  peace  of  the  Nation.  And  did  think  to  make 
a  very  good  issue  "  in  that  way,"  to  the  accomplishment  of 
their  designs  !  I  say,  this  was  made  good  upon  the  Trial. 
Before  the  Parliament  sat,  all  the  time  the  Parliament  sat, 
they  were  about  it.  We  did  hint  these  things  to  the  ParUa- 
ment  people  by  several  persons,  who  acquainted  them  there- 
with. But  what  fame  we  lay  under  I  know  not.  It  was 
conceived,  it  seems,  we  had  things  which  rather  intended  to 
persuade  agreement  and  consent,  and  bring  money  out  of 
the  people's  purses,  or  I  know  not  what ; — in  short  nothing 
was  believed  ;  though  there  was  a  series  of  things  distinctly 
and  plainly  communicated  to  many  members. 

The  Parliament  rose  about  the  middle  of  January.  By 
the  12th  of  March  after,  the  people  were  in  arms.  But  *'  they 
were  a  company  of  mean  fellows," — alas  ! — "  not  a  lord,  nor 
a  gentleman,  nor  a  man  of  fortune,  nor  a  this  nor  that,  among 
them  ;  but  it  was  a  poor  headstrong  person,  a  company  of 
rash  fellows  who  were  at  the  undertaking  of  this  " — and  that 


12  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

was  all  !  And  by  such  things  have  men  "  once  well-affected  " 
lost  their  consciences  and  honours,  complying,  "  coming  to 
agreement  with  Malignants  "  upon  such  notions  as  these  ! — 
Give  me  leave  to  tell  you,  we  know  it ;  we  are  able  to  prove  it. 
And  I  refer  you  to  that  Declaration  which  was  for  guarding 
against  Cavaliers  (as  I  did  before  to  that  other  "  Declaration  " 
which  set  down  the  grounds  of  our  war  with  Spain),  whether 
these  things  were  true  or  not.  If  men  will  not  believe, — we 
are  satisfied,  we  do  our  duty.  If  we  let  you  know  things 
and  the  ground  of  them,  it  is  satisfaction  enough  to  us.  But 
to  see  how  men  can  reason  themselves  out  of  their  honours 
and  consciences  in  their  compliance  with  those  sort  of  people  ! 
— which  truly,  I  must  needs  say,  some  men  had  compliance 
with  who  I  thought  never  would  for  all  the  world  ;  I  must 
tell  you  so. 

These  men  rise  in  March.  And  that  it  was  a  general  Design, 
I  think  all  the  world  must  know  and  acknowledge.  For  it 
is  as  evident  as  the  day  that  the  King  sent  Sir  Joseph  Wag- 
staff  and  another,  the  Earl  of  Rochester,  to  the  North.  And 
that  it  was  general,  we  had  not  by  suspicion  or  imagination  ; 
but  we  know  individuals  !  We  are  able  to  make  appear 
that  persons  who  carried  themselves  the  most  demurely  a^d 
fairly  of  any  men  in  England  were  engaged  in  this  business. 
And  he  that  gave  us  our  intelligence  lost  his  life  for  it  in  Neu- 
berg  country.  I  think  I  may  now  speak  of  that,  because  he 
is  dead  : — but  he  did  discover,  from  time  to  time,  a  full 
intelligence  of  these  things.  Therefore,  How  men  of  wicked 
spirits  may  traduce  us  in  that  matter  ;  or,  notwithstanding 
all  that  has  been  done,  may  still  continue  their  compliances 
"  with  the  Malignants,"  I  leave  it.  I  think  England  cannot  be 
safe  unless  Malignants  be  carried  far  away  ! — 

There  was  never  any  design  on  foot  but  we  could  hear  it 
out  of  the  Tower.  He  who  commanded  there  would  give  us 
account,  That  within  a  fortnight  of  such  a  thing  there  would 
be  some  stirrings  ;  for  a  great  concourse  of  people  were  coming 
to  them,  and  they  had  very  great  elevation  of  spirit.  And 
not  only  these  ;  but  in  all  the  counties  of  England.  We 
have  had  informations  that  they  were  upon  designs  all  over 
England  (besides  some  particular  places  which  came  to  our 
particular  assurance),  by  knowledge  we  had  from  persons  in 
the  several  counties  of  England. 


CROMWELL  13 

And  if  this  he  so,  then,  as  long  as  commotions  can  be  held 
on  foot,  you  are  in  danger  by  your  war  with  Spain  ;  with  whom 
all  the  Papal  Interest  is  joined.  This  Pope  is  a  person  all  the 
world  knows  to  be  a  person  of  zeal  for  his  Religion,  wherein 
perhaps  he  may  shame  us, — and  a  man  of  contrivance,  and 
wisdom,  and  policy  ;  and  his  Designs  are  known  to  be,  all  over, 
nothing  but  an  endeavour  to  unite  all  the  Popish  interests  in 
all  the  Christian  world,  against  this  Nation  above  any,  and 
against  all  the  Protestant  interest  in  the  world.  If  this  be  so, 
and  if  you  will  take  a  measure  of  these  things  ;  if  we  must 
still  hold  the  esteem  that  we  have  had  "  for  Spaniards,"  and 
be  ready  to  shake  hands  with  them  and  the  Cavaliers — what 
does  this  differ  from  the  Bishop  of  Canterbury  "  striving  " 
to  reconcile  matters  of  religion  ;  if  this  temper  be  upon  us  to 
unite  with  these  "  Popish  "  men  in  civil  things  ?  Give  me 
leave  to  say,  and  speak  what  I  know  !  If  this  be  men's  mind, 
I  tell  you  plainly, — I  hope  I  need  not ;  but  I  wish  all  the 
Cavaliers  in  England,  and  all  the  Papists,  heard  me  declare  it, 
and  many  besides  yourselves  have  heard  me  :  There  are 
a  company  of  poor  men  that  are  ready  to  spend  their  blood 
against  such  compliance,  and  I  am  persuaded  of  the  same 
thing  in  you  ! 

If  this  be  our  condition, — with  respect  had  to  this  truly  let 
us  go  a  little  farther.  For  I  would  lay  open  the  danger, 
wherein  I  think  in  my  conscience  we  stand  ;  and  if  God  give 
not  your  hearts  to  see  and  discern  what  is  obvious,  we  shall 
sink,  and  the  house  will  fall  about  our  ears, — upon  even  **  what 
are  called  "  "  such  sordid  attempts  "  as  these  same  !  Truly 
there  are  a  great  many  people  in  this  Nation,  who  "  would  not 
reckon  up  every  pitiful  thing," — perhaps  like  the  nibbling 
of  a  mouse  at  one's  heel ;  but  only  "  considerable  dangers  !  " 
I  will  tell  you  plainly  "  what  to  me  seems  dangerous."  It  is 
not  a  time  for  compliments  nor  rhetorical  speeches,  I  have 
none  truly  ; — but  to  tell  you  how  we  find  things. 

There  is  a  generation  of  men  in  this  Nation  who  cry  up 
righteousness  and  justice  and  liberty  ;  and  these  are  diversified 
into  several  sects,  and  sorts  of  men  ;  and  though  they  may 
be  contemptible,  in  respect  they  are  many,  and  so  not  like  to 
make  a  solid  vow  to  do  you  mischief, — yet  they  are  apt  to  agree 
in  aliquo  tertio.  They  are  known  (yea,  well  enough)  to  shake 
hands   with, — I    should    be   loath    to   say    with    Cavaliers — 


14  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

but  with  all  the  scum  and  dirt  of  this  Nation,  to  put 
you  to  trouble.  And,  when  I  come  to  speak  of  the  Remedies, 
I  shall  tell  you  what  are  the  most  apt  and  proper  remedies 
in  these  respects.  I  speak  now  of  the  very  time  when  there 
was  an  Insurrection  at  Salisbury,  "  your  Wagstaffs  and 
Penruddocks  openly  in  arms."  I  doubt  whether  it  be  believed 
there  ever  was  any  rising  in  North  Wales  "  at  the  same  time  "  ; 
at  Shrewsbury  ;  at  Rufford  Abbey,  where  were  about  Five 
hundred  horse  ;  or  at  Marston  Moor  ;  or  in  Northumberland 
and  the  other  places, — where  all  these  Insurrections  were  at 
that  very  time  ! — There  was  a  Party  which  was  very  proper 
to  come  between  the  Papists  and  Cavaliers  ;  and  that  Levelling 
Party  hath  some  accession  lately,  which  goes  under  a  finer 
name  or  notion  !  I  think  they  would  now  be  called  "  Com- 
monwealth's men," — who  perhaps  have  right  to  it  little  enough. 
And  it  is  strange  that  men  of  fortune  and  great  estates  should 
join  with  such  a  people.  But  if  the  fact  be  so,  there  will 
need  no  stretch  of  wit  to  make  it  evident,  it  being  so  by 
demonstration. 

I  say,  this  people  at  that  very  time,  they  were  pretty  numer- 
ous,— and  do  not  despise  them ! — at  the  time  when  the  Cavaliers 
were  risen,  this  very  Party  had  prepared  a  Declaration  against 
aU  these  things  that  had  been  transacted  **  by  us  "  ;  and  called 
them  by  I  know  not  "  what  names,"  "  tyranny,"  "  oppression," 
things,  "  against  "  the  liberty  of  the  subject,  and  cried  out 
for  "  justice,"  and  "  righteousness,"  and  "  liberty  "  ; — and 
what  was  all  this  business  for,  but  to  join  the  Cavaliers  to  carry 
on  that  Design  ?  And  these  are  things, — not  words  !  That 
Declaration  we  got  and  the  Penner  of  it  we  got  :  and  we  have 
got  intelligence  also  how  the  business  was  laid  and  contrived  ; — 
which  was  hatched  in  the  time  of  the  Sitting  of  that  Parlia- 
ment. I  do  not  accuse  anybody  :  but  that  was  the  time  of  it ; 
— an  unhappy  time  !  And  a  plausible  Petition  had  been 
penned,  which  must  come  to  me,  forsooth,  *'  To  consider  of 
these  things,  and  to  give  redress  and  remedies."  And  this 
was  so. 

Now  indeed  I  must  tell  you  plainly,  we  suspected  a  great 
deal  of  violence  then  ;  and  we  did  hunt  it  out.  I  will  not  teU 
you  these  are  high  things  ;  but  at  that  time  when  the  Cavaliers 
were  to  rise,  a  Party  was  to  seize  upon  General  Monk  in  Scot- 
land, and   to  commit  him  to  Edinburgh  Castle,   upon  this 


CROMWELL  15 

pretence  of  "liberty"  and  when  they  had  seized  him,  and  clapped 
him  by  the  heels,  "  him  "  and  some  other  true  and  faithful 
ofl&cers,  they  had  resolved  a  number  at  the  same  time  should 
march  away  for  London  ;  leaving  a  party  behind  them, — to 
have  their  throats  cut  by  the  Scots  !  Though  I  would  not  say 
they  would  have  "  purposely  "  brought  it  to  this  pass  ;  yet 
it  cannot  be  thought  but  that  a  considerable  "  part  of  the  " 
Army  would  have  followed  them  "  hither  "  at  the  heels. — 
And  not  only  thus  ;  but  this  same  spirit  and  principle  designed 
some  little  fiddhng  things  upon  some  of  your  Officers,  to  an 
assassination  ;  and  an  officer  was  engaged,  who  was  upon  the 
Guard,  to  seize  me  in  my  bed.  This  was  true.  And  other 
foolish  designs  there  were, — as,  To  get  into  a  room,  to  get 
gunpowder  laid  in  it,  and  to  blow  up  the  room  where  I  lay. 
And  this  we  can  tell  you,  is  true.  These  are  Persons  not 
worthy  naming  ;  but  the  things  are  true.  And  such  is  the  state 
we  have  stood  in,  and  had  to  conflict  with,  since  the  last 
Parliament.  And  upon  this  account,  and  in  this  combination, 
it  is  that  I  say  to  you.  That  the  ringleaders  to  all  this  are  none 
but  your  old  enemies  the  Papists  and  Cavaliers.  We  have 
some  "  of  them  "  in  prison  for  these  things. 

Now  we  would  be  loath  to  tell  you  of  notions  mere  seraphical ! 
These  are  poor  and  low  conceits.  We  have  had  very  sera- 
phical notions  !  We  have  had  endeavours  to  deal  between 
two  Interests ; — one  some  section  of  that  Commonwealth 
Interest ;  and  another  which  was  a  notion  of  a  Fifth-Monarchy 
Interest  !  which  "  strange  operation  "  I  do  not  recite,  nor 
what  condition  it  is  in,  as  thinking  it  not  worthy  our  trouble. 
But  de  facto  it  has  been  so.  That  there  have  been  endeavours  ; 
— as  there  were  endeavours  to  make  a  reconciliation  between 
Herod  and  Pilate  that  Christ  might  be  put  to  death,  so 
there  have  been  endeavours  of  reconciliation  between  Fifth 
Monarchy  men  and  the  Commonwealth  men  that  there  might 
be  union  in  order  to  an  end, — ^no  end  can  be  so  bad  as  that 
of  Herod's  was — but  in  order  to  end  in  blood  and  confusion  ! 
And,  that  you  may  know,  "  to  tell  you  candidly  "  I  profess  I 
do  not  believe  of  these  two  last,  of  Commonwealth  men  and 
Fifth-Monarchy  men,  but  that  they  have  stood  at  a  distance 
"  aloof  from  Charles  Stuart."  I  think  they  did  not  participate. 
I  would  be  so  charitable,  I  would  be.  That  they  did  not.  But 
this  I  will  tell  you.  That  as  for  the  others,  they  did  not  only 


16  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

set  these  things  on  work  ;  but  they  sent  a  fellow,  a  wretched 
creature,  an  apostate  from  religion  and  all  honesty, — they 
sent  him  to  Madrid  to  advise  with  the  King  of  Spain  to  land 
forces  to  invade  the  Nation.  Promising  satisfaction  that  they 
would  comply  and  concur  with  him  to  have  both  men  and 
moneys  ;  undertaking  both  to  engage  the  Fleet  to  mutiny,  and 
also  your  Army  to  gain  a  garrison  "  on  the  coast  "  to  raise  a 
party  "  so  "  that  if  the  Spaniard  would  say  where  he  would 
land,  they  would  be  ready  to  assist  him  ! — This  person  was 
sometimes  a  Colonel  in  the  Army.  He  went  with  letters  to 
the  Archduke  Leopoldus  and  Don  John.  That  was  an 
**  Ambassador  "  ;  — and  gave  promise  of  much  moneys  :  and 
has  been  soliciting,  and  did  obtain  moneys  ;  which  he  sent 
hither  by  Bills  of  Exchange  : — and  God,  by  His  Providence, 
we  being  exceedingly  poor,  directed  that  we  lighted  on  some 
of  them,  and  some  of  the  moneys  !  Now,  if  they  be  payable, 
let  them  be  called  for  !  If  the  House  shall  think  fit  to  order 
any  inspection  into  these  things,  they  may  have  it. 

We  think  it  our  duty  to  tell  you  of  these  things  ;  and  we 
can  make  them  good.  Here  is  your  danger  ;  that  is  it  ! 
Here  is  a  poor  Nation  that  has  wallowed  in  its  blood  ; — though 
thanks  be  to  God,  we  have  had  Peace  these  four  or  five  years  ; 
yet  here  is  the  condition  we  stand  in.  And  I  think  I  should  be 
false  to  you,  if  I  did  not  give  you  this  true  representation  of  it. 

I  am  to  tell  you,  by  the  way,  a  word  to  justify  a  Thing  which 
I  hear,  is  much  spoken  of.  When  we  knew  all  these  Designs 
before  mentioned  ;    when  we  found  that  the  Cavaliers  would 

not  be  quiet No  quiet ;  "  There  is  no  peace  to  the  wicked," 

saith  the  Scripture  (Isaiah,  Fifty-seventh)  :  "  They  are  hke 
the  troubled  sea,  which  cannot  rest ;  whose  waters  throw  up 
mire  and  dirt."  They  cannot  rest, — they  have  no  Peace 
with  God  in  Jesus  Christ  to  the  remission  of  sins  !  They  do 
not  know  what  belongs  to  that ;  therefore  they  know  not  how 
to  be  at  rest ;  therefore  they  can  no  more  cease  from  their 
actions  than  they  can  cease  to  hve, — nor  so  easily  neither  ! — 
Truly  when  that  Insurrection  was,  and  we  saw  it  in  all  the  roots 
and  grounds  of  it,  we  did  find  out  a  little  poor  Invention, 
which  I  hear  has  been  much  regretted.  I  say,  there  was  a 
little  thing  invented  ;  which  was,  the  erecting  of  your  Major- 
Generals  :  To  have  a  little  inspection  upon  the  People  thus 
divided,   thus   discontented,   thus   dissatisfied,    "  spht "   into 


CROMWELL  17 

divers  interests, — and  the  workings  of  the  Popish  party  ! 
"  Workings  of  the  Lord  Taaff  and  others  "  ;  the  most  consisting 
of  Natural-Irish  rebels,  and  all  those  men  you  have  fought 
against  in  Ireland,  and  have  expulsed  from  thence,  as  having 
had  a  hand  in  that  bloody  massacre  ; — of  him  and  of  those  that 
were  under  his  power  ;  who  were  now  to  have  gained  in  this 
excellent  business  of  Insurrection  ! 

And  upon  such  a  Rising  as  that  was, — truly  I  think  if  ever 
anything  were  justifiable  as  to  Necessity,  and  honest  in  every 
respect,  this  was.  And  I  could  as  soon  venture  my  life  with 
it  as  with  anything  I  ever  undertook  !  We  did  find — I  mean 
— myself  and  the  Council  did — That,  if  there  were  need  to 
have  greater  forces  to  carry  on  this  work,  it  was  a  most  right- 
eous thing  to  put  the  charge  upon  that  party  which  was  the 
cause  of  it.  And  if  there  be  any  man  that  hath  a  face  averse 
to  this,  I  dare  pronounce  him  to  be  a  man  against  the  Interest 
of  England  !  Upon  this  account,  upon  this  ground  of  necessity; 
when  we  saw  what  game  they  were  upon  ;  and  knew  individual 
persons,  and  of  the  greatest  rank,  not  a  few,  engaged  in  this 
business  (I  knew  one  man  that  laid  down  his  life  for  it)  ;  and 
had  it  hy  intercepted  Letters  made  as  clear  as  the  day  ; — we  did 
think  it  our  duty  to  make  that  class  of  persons  who,  as  evidently 
as  anything  in  the  world,  were  in  the  combination  "  of  the 
insurrectionists,"  bear  their  share  of  the  charge.  "  Bear  their 
share,"  one  with  another,  for  the  raising  of  the  Forces  which 
were  so  necessary  to  defend  us  against  those  Designs  !  And 
truly  if  any  man  be  angry  at  it, — I  am  plain,  and  shall  use  an 
homely  expression  :  Let  him  turn  the  buckle  of  his  girdle 
behind  him.     If  this  were  to  be  done  again,  I  would  do  it. 

How  the  Major-Generals  have  behaved  themselves  in  that 
work  ?  I  hope  they  are  men,  as  to  their  persons,  of  known 
integrity  and  fidelity  ;  and  men  who  have  freely  adventured 
their  blood  and  lives  for  that  good  Cause, — if  it  "  still  "  be 
thought  such,  and  it  was  well  stated,  "  this  morning,"  against 

all  the  "  new  "  humours  and  fancies  of  men  ! And  truly 

England  does  yet  receive  one  day  more  of  lengthening  out 
its  tranquillity,  by  that  same  service  of  theirs. 

WeU  ;  your  danger  is  as  you  have  seen.  And  truly  I  am 
sorry  it  is  so  great.  But  I  wish  it  to  cause  no  despondency  ; — 
as  truly,  I  think,  it  will  not  ;  for  we  are  Englishmen  ;  that  is 
one  good  fact.     And  if  God  give  a  Nation  the  property  of 

2— (2170) 


18  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

valour  and  courage,  it  is  honour  and  a  mercy  "  from  Him." 
And  much  more  "  than  Enghsh  !  "  Because  you  all,  I  hope, 
are  Christian  men,  who  know  Jesus  Christ,  and  know  that 
Cause  which  hath  been  mentioned  to  you  this  day. 

Having  declared  to  you  my  sense  and  knowledge, — pardon 
me  if  I  say  so,  my  knowledge, — of  the  condition  of  these  poor 
Nations,  for  it  hath  an  influence  upon  them  all,  it  concerned 
them  all  very  palpably  :  I  should  be  to  blame  if  I  did  not  a 
little  offer  to  you  the  Remedies.  I  would  comprehend  them 
under  two  considerations.  They  are  both  somewhat  general. 
The  one  is.  The  considering  all  things  that  may  be  done,  and 
that  ought  to  be  done,  in  order  [to]  Security  ;  that  is  one.  And 
truly  the  other  is  a  common  head,  "  a  general,  nay  a  universal 
consideration," — the  other  is.  Doing  all  things  that  ought 
to  be  done  in  order  to  Reformation  :  and  with  that  I  will 
close  my  discourse.  All  that  has  hitherto  been  hinted  at  was 
but  to  give  you  a  sense  of  the  danger  ;  which  "  truly  "  is 
most  material  and  significant ;  for  which  principally  you 
are  called  hither  to  advise  of  the  remedies. — I  do  put  them, 
"  the  remedies,"  into  this  twofold  method,  not  but  that  I 
think  they  are  scarcely  distinct.  I  do  believe,  truly,  upon 
serious  and  deliberate  consideration,  that  a  true  Reforma- 
tion, as  it  may,  and  will  thro'  God's  acceptance,  and  by  the 
endeavours  of  His  poor  servants,  be, — that  that,  "  I  say," 
will  be  pleasing  in  His  sight  ;  and  will  prove  not  only  what 
shall  avert  the  present  danger,  but  be  a  worthy  return  for  all 
the  blessings  and  mercies  which  you  have  received.  So  in 
my  conscience,  If  I  were  put  to  show  it,  this  hour,  where  the 
security  of  these  Nations  will  lie  ? — forces,  arms,  watchings, 
posts,  strength  ;  your  being  and  freedom  ;  be  as  politic  and 
diligent,  and  as  vigilant  as  you  can  be, — I  would  say  in  my 
conscience,  and  as  before  Almighty  God  I  speak  it ;  I  think 
your  Reformation,  if  it  be  honest,  and  thorough,  and  just,  it 
will  be  your  best  security  ! 

First,  "  however,"  with  regard  to  Security  outwardly 
considered.  We  will  speak  a  little  distinctly  to  that.  You 
see  where  your  War  is.  It  is  with  the  Spaniard.  You  have 
Peace  with  all  "  other  "  Nations,  or  the  most  of  them  :  Swede, 
Dane,  Dutch.  At  present,  I  say,  it  is  well ;  it  is  at  present  so. 
And  so  likewise  with  the  Portugal,  with  France, — the  Mediter- 
ranean Sea.     Both  these  States  ;  both  Christian  and  Profane  ; 


CROMWELL  19 

the  Mahometan  ; — you  have  Peace  with  them  all.  Only  with 
Spain,  you  have  a  difference,  you  have  a  War.  I  pray  consider 
it.  Do  I  come  to  tell  you  that  I  would  tie  you  to  this  war  ? 
No.  "  According  "  as  you  shall  find  your  spirits  and  reasons 
grounded  in  what  hath  been  said,  so  let  you  and  me  join  in  the 
prosecution  of  that  war, — "  according  "  as  we  are  satisfied, 
and  as  the  cause  shall  appear  to  our  consciences  in  the  sight 
of  the  Lord.  But  if  you  can  come  to  prosecute  it,  prosecute 
it  vigorously,  or  don't  do  it  at  all ! 

Truly  I  shall  speak  a  very  great  word, — one  may  ask  a  very 
great  question  ;  *'  unde  ;  whence  shall  the  means  of  it  come  ?  " 
Our  Nation  is  overwhelmed  in  debts  !  Nevertheless  I  think 
it  my  duty  to  deal  plainly  ;  I  shall  speak  what  even  Nature 
teacheth  us.  If  we  engage  in  a  business, — a  recoiling  man 
may  haply  recover  of  his  enemy  :  but  the  wisdom  of  a  man 
surely  will  be  in  the  keeping  of  his  ground  !  Therefore  that  is 
what  I  advise  you,  That  we  join  together  to  prosecute  it 
vigorously.  In  the  second  place,  I  would  advise  you  to  deal 
effectually, — even  because  there  is  such  a  '*  complication  of 
interests,"  "  as  some  keep  objecting."  If  you  believe  that 
there  is  such  a  compHcation  of  interests, — why,  then,  in  the 
name  of  God,  that  excites  you  the  more  to  do  it !  Give  me 
leave  to  tell  you,  I  do  not  believe  that  in  any  war  that  ever 
was  in  former  times,  nor  in  any  engagements  that  you  have 
had  with  other  "  enemies,"  this  Nation  had  more  obligation 
upon  it  to  look  to  itself, — to  forbear  waste  of  time,  precious 
time  !  Needlessly  to  mind  things  that  are  not  essential,  to 
be  quibbling  about  words,  and  comparatively  about  things 
of  no  moment ;  and  in  the  meantime, — being  in  such  a  case 
as  I  suppose  you  know  we  are, — to  suffer  ourselves  to  be 
wanting  to  a  just  defence  against  the  common  Enemies  abroad, 
or  not  to  be  thoroughly  sensible  of  the  Distempers  that  are  at 
home — ! — I  know,  perhaps  there  are  many  considerations 
which  may  teach  you,  which  may  incline  you,  to  keep  your 
own  hands  tender  from  men  of  one  Religion  '*  with  ourselves  " 
and  of  an  Interest  that  is  so  spread  in  the  Nation.  However, 
if  they  seek  the  eradication  of  the  Nation  ;  if  they  be  active 
as  you  have  seen,  and  *'  as  "  it  hath  been  made  manifest  so 
as  not  to  be  denied,  to  the  carrying  on  of  their  Designs  ;  if 
England  must  be  eradicated  by  persons  complicated  with  the 
Spciniard  ;  if  this  must  be  brought  upon  us  through  distempers 


20  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

and  falseness  of  men  among  themselves, — then  the  question 
is  no  more  than  this  ;  whether  any  consideration  whatsoever 
shall  lead  us,  for  fear  of  eradicating  distempers,  to  suffer  all 
the  honest  Interests  of  this  Nation  to  be  eradicated  ?  There- 
fore, speaking  generally  of  any  of  their  distempers,  "  which  " 
are  of  all  sorts, — where  a  member  cannot  be  cured,  the  rule  is 
plain,  Ense  reddendum  est  immedicahile  vulnus.  And  I 
think  it  is  of  such  an  advantage  that  nothing  ever  could 
more  properly  be  put  in  practice  since  this  or  any  Nation 
"  first  "  was. 

As  to  those  lesser  distempers  of  people  that  pretend  Religion, 
yet  which  from  the  whole  consideration  of  Religion,  would 
fall  under  one  of  the  heads  of  Reformation, — I  had  rather  put 
these  under  this  head  ;  and  I  shall  the  less  speak  of  it,  because 
you  have  so  well  spoken  to  already  to-day  "  elsewhere."  I 
will  tell  you  the  truth  :  Our  practice  since  the  last  Parliament 
hath  been,  To  let  all  this  Nation  see  that  whatever  pretentions 
to  Religion  would  continue  quiet,  peaceable,  they  should  enjoy 
conscience  and  liberty  to  themselves  ; — and  not  to  make 
Religion  a  pretence  for  arms  and  blood.  Truly  we  have  suffered 
them,  and  that  cheerfully,  so  to  enjoy  their  own  liberties. 
Whatsoever  is  contrary,  "  and  not  peaceable,"  let  the  pretence 
be  never  so  specious, — if  it  tend  to  combination,  to  interests 
and  factions,  we  shall  not  care,  by  the  grace  of  God,  whom 
we  meet  withal  though  never  so  specious,  "  if  they  be  not 
quiet  !  "  And  truly  I  am  against  all  "  liberty  of  conscience  " 
repugnant  to  this.  If  men  will  profess, — be  they  those  under 
Baptism,  be  they  those  of  the  Independent  Judgment  simply, 
or  of  the  Presbyterian  Judgment, — in  the  name  of  God, 
encourage  them,  countenance  them  ;  so  long  as  they  do  plainly 
continue  to  be  thankful  to  God,  and  to  make  use  of  the  liberty 
given  them  to  enjoy  their  own  consciences  !  For  as  it  was 
said  to-day,  undoubtedly  "  this  is  the  peculiar  Interest  all  this 
while  contended  for." 

Men  who  believe  in  Jesus  Christ — that  is  the  Form  that 
gives  being  to  true  religion,  "  namely,"  Faith  in  Christ  and 
walking  in  a  profession — answerable  to  that  Faith  ; — men 
who  believe  the  remission  of  sins  through  the  blood  of  Christ, 
and  free  justification  by  the  blood  of  Christ ;  who  live  upon 
the  grace  of  God  ;  those  men  who  are  certain  they  are  so — 
"  they  "  are  members  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  are  to  Him  the 


CROMWELL  21 

apple  of  His  eye.  Whoever  hath  this  Faith,  let  his  Form  be 
what  it  will  ;  he  walking  peaceably,  without  prejudice  to  others 
under  other  Forms  : — it  is  a  debt  due  to  God  and  Christ  ; 
and  He  will  require  it,  if  that  Christian  may  not  enjoy  his 
liberty. 

If  a  man  of  one  form  will  be  trampling  upon  the  heels  of 
another  form  ;  if  an  Independent,  for  example,  will  despise 
him  "  who  is  "  under  Baptism,  and  will  revile  him,  and  reproach 
and  provoke  him, — I  will  not  suffer  it  in  him.  If,  on  the  other 
side,  those  of  the  Anabaptist  "  judgment  "  shall  be  censuring 
the  Godly  Ministers  of  the  Nation  who  profess  under  that  of 
Independency ;  or  if  those  that  profess  under  Presbytery 
shall  be  reproaching  or  speaking  evil  of  them,  traducing  and 
censuring  of  them, — as  I  would  not  be  willing  to  see  the  day 
when  England  shall  be  in  the  power  of  the  Presbytery  to  im- 
pose upon  the  consciences  of  others  that  profess  faith  in  Christ, 
— so  I  will  not  endure  any  reproach  to  them.  But  God  give 
us  hearts  and  spirits  to  keep  things  equal.  Which,  truly  I 
must  profess  to  you,  hath  been  my  temper.  I  have  had  some 
boxes  "  on  the  ear  "  and  rebukes, — on  the  one  hand  and  on 
the  other  ;  some  censuring  me  for  Presbytery  ;  others  as  an 
inlet ter  to  all  the  Sects  and  Heresies  of  the  Nation.  I  have 
borne  my  reproach  :  but  I  have,  through  God's  mercy,  not 
been  unhappy  in  hindering  any  one  Religion  to  impose  upon 
another.  And  truly  I  must  needs  say  (I  speak  it  experiment- 
ally) :  I  have  found  it,  I  have,  that  those  of  the  Presbyterian 
judgment — I  speak  it  knowingly,  as  having  received  from 
very  many  countries — I  have  had  Petitions,  and  acknowledg- 
ments and  professions,  from  whole  counties  ;  as  from  Corn- 
wall, Devon,  Somerset,  and  other  Counties — acknowledg- 
ments that  they,  "  the  Presbyterians  there,"  do  but  desire 
they  may  have  liberty  and  protection  in  the  worshipping  of 
God  according  to  their  own  judgments  ;  for  the  purging  of 
their  congregations,  and  the  labouring  to  attain  more  purity 
of  faith  and  repentance  ; — and  that,  in  their  outward  pro- 
fession, they  will  not  strain  themselves  beyond  their  own  line. 
I  have  had  those  petitions  ;  I  have  them  to  show.  And  I 
confess  I  look  at  that  as  the  blessedest  thing  which  hath  been 
since  the  adventuring  upon  this  Government,  '*  or  "  which 
these  times  produce.  And  I  hope  I  gave  them  fair  and  honest 
answers.     Aiid  if  it  shall  be  found  to  he  the  Civil  Magistrate's 


52  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

real  endeavour  to  keep  all  professing  Christians  in  this  relation 
to  one  another  ;  not  suffering  any  to  say  or  do  what  will 
justly  provoke  the  others  ; — I  think  that  he  that  would  have 
more  liberty  than  this  is  not  worthy  of  any. 

This,  therefore,  I  think  verily,  if  it  may  be  under  consider- 
ation for  Reformation,  I  say,  if  it  please  God  to  give  you  and 
me  hearts  to  keep  this  straight,  "  it  may  be  a  great  means  " 
in  giving  countenance  to  just  Ministers, — in  countenancing 
a  just  maintenance  to  them,  by  Tithes  or  otherwise.  For  my 
part  I  should  think  I  were  very  treacherous  if  I  took  away 
Tithes,  till  I  see  the  Legislative  Power  settle  maintenance  to 
Ministers  another  way.  But  whoever  they  be  that  shall 
contend  to  destroy  Tithes, — it  does  as  surely  cut  their  "  the 
Ministers'  "  throats  as  it  is  adrift  to  take  Tithes  away  before 
another  mode  of  maintenance,  or  way  of  preparation  towards 
such,  be  had.  Truly  I  think  all  such  practices  and  proceedings 
should  be  discountenanced.  I  have  heard  it  from  as  gracious 
a  Minister  as  any  is  in  England  ;  I  have  had  it  professed  : 
That  it  would  be  a  far  greater  satisfaction  to  them  to  have 
maintenance  another  way, — if  the  State  will  provide  it.  There- 
fore I  think,  for  the  keeping  of  the  Church  and  people  of  God 
and  professors  in  their  several  forms  in  this  liberty, — I  think 
as  it,  "  this  of  tithes,  or  some  other  maintenance,"  has  been 
a  thing  that  is  the  root  of  visible  Profession,  the  upholding  of 
this — I  think  you  will  find  a  blessing  in  it ; — If  God  keep  your 
hearts  to  keep  things  in  this  posture  and  balance,  which  is  so 
honest  and  so  necessary. 

Truly,  there  might  be  some  other  things  offered  to  you,  in 

point  of  Reformation  ;   a  Reformation  of  Manners,  to  wit 

But  I  had  forgot  one  thing  of  which  I  must  remember  !  It  is 
the  Church  work,  you  know,  in  some  measure  :  yet  give  me 
leave  to  ask,  and  I  appeal  unto  your  consciences,  whether  or 
no  there  hath  not  been  an  honest  care  taken  for  the  ejection 
of  Scandalous  Ministers,  and  for  the  bringing  in  of  them  that 
have  passed  on  Approbation  ?  I  dare  say,  such  an  Approba- 
tion as  never  passed  in  England  before  !  And  give  me  leave 
to  say.  It  hath  been  with  this  difference  "  from  the  old  prac- 
tice "  ;  that  neither  Mr.  Parson  nor  Doctor  in  the  University 
has  been  reckoned  stamp  enough  by  those  that  made  these 
Approbations  ; — though  I  can  say,  too,  they  have  a  great 
esteem  for  Learning  ;    and  look  at  Grace  as  most  useful  when 


CROMWELL  23 

it  falls  unto  men  with  rather  than  without  "  that  addition  "  ; 
and  wish,  with  all  their  hearts,  the  flourishing  of  all  those 
Institutions  of  Learning,  as  much  as  any.  I  think  there  hath 
been  a  conscience  exercised,  both  by  myself  and  the  Ministers, 
towards  them  that  have  been  approved.  I  may  say,  such  an 
one,  as  I  truly  believe  was  never  known  in  England,  "  in 
regard  to  this  matter."  And  I  do  verily  believe  that  God 
hath  for  the  Ministry  a  very  great  seed  in  the  youth  "  now  " 
in  the  Universities  ;  who,  instead  of  studying  books,  study 
their  own  hearts.  I  do  believe,  as  God  has  made  a  very  great 
and  flourishing  seed  to  that  purpose  :  so  this  Ministry  of 
England — I  think  in  my  very  conscience  that  God  will  bless 
and  favour  it  ;  and  hath  blessed  it,  to  the  gaining  of  very 
many  souls.  It  was  never  so  upon  the  thriving  hand  since 
England  was,  as  at  this  day.  Therefore  I  say,  in  these  things, 
"  in  these  arrangements  made  by  us  "  which  tend  to  the 
profession  of  the  Gospel  and  Public  Ministry,  *'  I  think  "  you 
will  be  so  far  from  hindering,  that  you  wiU  further  them. 
And  I  shall  be  willing  to  join  with  you. 

I  did  hint  to  you  my  thoughts  about  the  Reformation  of 
Manners.  And  those  abuses  that  are  in  this  nation  through 
disorder,  are  a  thing  which  should  be  much  in  your  hearts. 
It  is  that,  which,  I  am  confident,  is  a  description  and  character 
of  the  Interest  you  have  been  engaged  against,  "  the  Cavalier 
Interest  "  ;  the  badge  and  character  of  countenancing  Pro- 
faneness.  Disorder  and  Wickedness  in  all  places, — and  what- 
ever is  most  of  Kin  to  these,  and  most  agrees  with  what  is 
Popery,  and  with  the  profane  Nobility  and  Gentry  of  this 
Nation.  In  my  conscience,  it  was  a  shame  to  be  a  Christian, 
within  these  fifteen,  sixteen  or  seventeen  years,  in  this  Nation  ! 
Whether  "  in  Caesar's  house,"  or  elsewhere  !  It  was  a  shame, 
it  was  a  reproach  to  a  man  ;  and  the  badge  of  **  Puritan  " 
was  put  upon  it. — We  would  keep  up  Nobility  and  Gentry  : — 
and  the  way  to  keep  them  up  is,  Not  to  suffer  them  to  be 
patronisers  or  countenancers  of  debauchery  and  disorders  ! 
And  you  wiU  hereby  be  as  labourers  in  that  work  **  of  keeping 
them  up."  And  a  man  may  teU  as  plainly  as  can  be  what 
becomes  of  us,  if  we  grow  indifferent  and  lukewarm  **  in 
repressing  evil,"  under  I  know  not  what  weak  pretensions. 
If  it  lives  in  us,  therefore  ;  I  say,  if  it  be  in  the  general  **  heart 
of  the  Nation,"  it  is  a  thing  I  am  confident  our  liberty  and 


24  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

prosperity  depend  upon, — Reformation.  Make  it  a  shame  to 
see  men  bold  in  sin  and  profaneness,  and  God  will  bless  you. 
You  will  be  a  blessing  to  the  Nation  ;  and  by  this,  will  be  more 
repairers  of  breaches  than  by  anything  in  the  world.  Truly 
these  things  do  respect  the  souls  of  men,  and  the  spirits, — 
which  are  the  men.  The  mind  is  the  man.  If  that  be  kept 
pure,  a  man  signifies  somewhat  ;  if  not  I  would  very  fain  see 
what  difference  there  is  betwixt  him  and  a  beast.  He  hath 
only  some  activity  to  do  some  more  mischief. 

There  are  some  things  which  respect  the  Estates  of  men  ; 
and  there  is  one  general  Grievance  in  the  Nation.  It  is  the 
Law.  Not  that  the  Laws  are  a  grievance  ;  but  there  are  Laws 
that  are  ;  and  the  great  grievance  lies  in  the  execution  and 
administration.  I  think  I  may  say  it,  I  have  as  eminent 
Judges  in  this  land  as  have  been  had,  as  the  Nation  has  had, 
for  these  many  years. — Truly  I  could  be  particular,  as  to  the 
executive  part  "  of  it  "  as  to  the  administration  "  of  the  Law  "  ; 
but  that  would  trouble  you.  The  truth  of  it  is,  There  are 
wicked  and  abominable  Laws,  which  "  it  "  wiU  be  in  your 
power  to  alter.  To  hang  a  man  for  Six-and-eight-pence,  and 
I  know  not  what  ;  to  hang  for  a  trifle  and  acquit  for  murder, 
— is  in  the  ministration  of  the  Law,  through  the  ill-framing  of 
it.  I  have  known  in  my  experience  abominable  murders 
acquitted.  And  to  see  men  lose  their  lives  for  petty  matters  ; 
this  is  a  thing  God  will  reckon  for.  And  I  wish  it  may  not  lie 
upon  this  Nation  a  day  longer  than  you  have  an  opportunity 
to  give  a  remedy  ;  and  I  hope  I  shall  cheerfully  join  with  you 
in  it.  This  hath  been  a  great  grief  to  many  honest  hearts 
and  conscientious  people  ;  and  I  hope  it  is  in  all  your  hearts 
to  rectify  it. 

I  have  little  more  to  say  to  you,  being  very  weary  ;  and  I 
know  you  are  so  "  too."  Truly  I  did  begin  with  what  I  thought 
was  **  the  means  "  to  carry  on  this  War  (if  you  will  carry  it  on). 
That  we  might  join  together  in  that  vigourously.  And  I 
did  promise  an  answer  to  an  objection  :  "  But  what  will  you 
prosecute  it  with  ?  "  The  State  is  hugely  in  debt ;  I  believe 
it  comes  to — The  Treasure  of  the  State  is  run  out.  We  shall 
not  be  an  enemy  to  your  inspection  ;  but  desire  it ; — that 
you  should  inspect  the  Treasury,  and  how  moneys  have  been 
expended.  And  we  are  not  afraid  to  look  the  Nation  in  the 
face  upon  this  score.     And  therefore  we  will  say  negatively, 


CROMWELL  25 

first  No  man  can  say  we  have  misemployed  the  Treasures  of 
this  Nation,  and  embezzled  it  to  particular  and  private  uses. 
It  may  be  we  have  not  been, — as  the  world  terms  it, — so 
fortunate  in  all  our  successes,  "  in  the  issues  of  all  our 
attempts."  Truly  if  we  are  of  mind  that  God  may  not 
decide  for  us  in  these  things,  I  think  we  shall  be  quarrelhng 
with  what  God  "  Himself  "  will  answer  "  for."  And  we  hope 
we  are  able, — it  may  be  weakly,  I  doubt  not, — to  give  an 
answer  to  God,  and  to  give  an  answer  to  every  man's  conscience 
in  the  sight  of  God,  of  the  reason  of  things.  But  we  shall  tell 
you,  it  was  part  of  that  Arch-Fire,  which  hath  been  in  this 
your  time  ;  wherein  there  were  flames  good  store,  fire  enough  ; 
and  it  will  be  your  wisdom  and  skill,  and  God's  blessing  upon 
you,  to  quench  them  both  here  and  elsewhere  :  I  say  it  again, 
our  endeavours — by  those  that  have  been  appointed,  by  those 
that  have  been  Major-Generals  ;  I  can  repeat  it  with  comfort, 
— they  have  been  effectual  for  the  Preservation  of  your  Peace  ! 
It  has  been  more  effectual  towards  the  discountenancing  of 
Vice  and  settling  Religion,  than  anything  done  these  fifty  years ; 
I  will  abide  by  it,  notwithstanding  the  envy  and  slander  of 
foolish  men  !  But  I  say  there  was  a  design — I  confess  I  speak 
that  to  you  with  a  little  vehemency — But  you  had  not  peace 
two  months  together,  "  nothing  but  plot  after  plot  "  ;  I 
profess  I  believe  it  as  much  as  ever  I  did  anything  in  the  world  ; 
and  how  instrumental  they,  *'  these  Major-Generals,"  have 
been  to  your  peace  and  for  your  preservation,  by  such  means, 
— which,  we  say,  was  Necessity  !  More  "  instrumental  " 
than  all  instituted  things  in  the  world  ! —  — If  you  would 
make  laws  against  whatever  things  God  may  please  to  send, 
"  laws  "  to  meet  everything  that  may  happen, — you  make  a 
law  in  the  face  of  God  ;  you  tell  God  you  will  meet  all  His 
dispensations,  and  will  stay  things  whether  He  will  or  no  ! 
But  if  you  make  good  laws  of  Government,  that  men  may  know 
how  to  obey  and  to  act  for  Government,  they  may  be  laws 
that  have  frailty  and  weakness  ;  ay,  and  "  yet  "  good  laws 
to  be  observed.  But  if  nothing  should  *'  ever  "  be  done  but 
what  is  **  according  to  Law  "  the  throat  of  the  Nation  may 
be  cut  while  we  send  for  some  to  make  a  Law  !  Therefore 
certainly  it  is  a  pitiful,  beastly  notion  to  think,  though  it  be 
for  ordinary  Government  to  live  by  law  and  rule.  Yet — "  if  a 
Government  in  extraordinary  circumstances  go  beyond   the 


26  MMOUS  SPEECHES 

law  even  for  self-preservation,  it  is"  to  be  clamoured  at,  and 
blottered  at.  When  matters  of  Necessity  come,  then  without 
guilt  extraordinary  remedies  may  not  be  applied.  Who  can 
be  so  pitiful  a  person  ! 

I  confess  if  Necessity  be  pretended,  there  is  so  much  the  more 
sin.  A  laying  of  the  irregularity  of  men's  actions  upon  God 
as  if  he  had  sent  a  Necessity  ; — who  doth  indeed  send  Neces- 
sities !  But  to  anticipate  these — For  as  to  an  appeal  to  God, 
I  own  it,  "  own  this  Necessity  "  conscientiously  to  God  ;  and 
the  principles  of  Nature  dictate  the  thing  : — But  if  these  be  a 
supposition,  I  say,  of  a  Necessity  which  is  not,  every  act  so  done 
hath  in  it  the  more  sin.  This  "  whether  in  a  given  case,  there 
is  a  Necessity  or  not,"  perhaps  is  rather  to  be  disputed  than 
otherwise  :  But  I  must  say  I  do  not  know  one  action  "  of  the 
Government,"  no,  not  one,  but  it  has  been  in  order  to  the  peace 
and  safety  of  the  Nation.  And  the  keeping  of  some  in  prison 
hath  been  upon  such  clear  and  just  grounds  that  no  man  can 
except  against  it.  I  know  there  are  some  imprisoned  in  the 
Isle  of  Wight,  in  Cornwall,  and  elsewhere  ;  and  the  cause  of 
their  imprisonment  was,  They  were  all  found  acting  things 
which  tended  to  the  disturbance  of  the  Peace  of  the  Nation. 
Now  these  principles  made  us  say  to  them  :  **  Pray  live  quietly 
in  your  own  countries  "  :  you  shall  not  be  urged  with  bonds 
**  or  engagements,"  or  to  subscribe  to  the  "  Government." 
But  they  would  not  so  much  as  say,  *'  We  will  promise  to  live 
peaceably."  If  others  are  imprisoned,  it  is  because  they  have 
done  such  things.  And  if  other  particulars  strike,  we  know 
not  what  to  say, — as  having  endeavoured  to  walk  as  those  that 
would  not  only  give  an  account  to  God  of  their  actings  in 
Authority,  but  had  **  withal "  to  give  an  account  of  them  to  men. 

I  confess  I  have  digressed  much.  I  would  not  have  you  be 
discouraged  if  you  think  the  State  is  exceeding  poor.  Give 
me  leave  to  tell  you,  we  have  managed  the  Treasury  not 
unthriftily,  nor  for  private  uses  ;  but  for  the  use  of  the  Nation 
and  the  Government ;  and  shall  give  you  this  short  account. 
When  the  Long  Parliament  sat,  this  Nation  owed  £700,000. 
We  examined  it ;  it  was  brought  unto  that, — in  that  short 
Meeting  "  of  the  Little  Parhament,"  within  half  a  year  after 
the  Government  came  into  our  hands,  I  believe  there  was 
more  rather  than  less.  They,  the  **  Long  Parliament  people," 
had  £120,000  a  month  ;  they  had  the  King's,  Queen's,  Princes', 


CROMWELL  27 

Bishops'  Lands ;  all  Delinquents'  Estates,  and  the  Dean- 
and-Chapter  Lands  ; — which  was  a  very  rich  Treasure.  As 
soon  as  ever  we  came  to  the  Government,  we  abated  £30,000 
the  first  half  year,  and  £60,000  after.  We  had  no  benefits  of 
those  Estates,  at  all  considerable  ;  I  do  not  think,  the  fiftieth 
part  of  what  they  had  : — and  give  me  leave  to  tell  you,  we 
know  it  has  been  maliciously  dispersed,  as  if  we  had  set  the 
Nation  into  £2,500.000  of  debt ;  but  I  tell  you,  you  are  not  so 
much  in  debt,  by  some  thousands, — I  think  I  may  say,  by 
some  hundreds  of  thousands  !  This  is  true  that  I  tell  you. 
We  have — honestly, — it  may  be  not  so  wisely  as  some  others 
would  have  done, — but  with  honest  and  plain  hearts,  laboured 
and  endeavoured  the  disposal  of  Treasure  to  Public  Users  ; 
and  laboured  to  pull  off  the  common  charge  £60,000,  a  month, 
as  you  see.  And  if  we  had  continued  that  charge  that  was 
left  upon  the  Nation,  perhaps  we  could  have  had  as  much 
money  "  in  hand,"  as  now  we  are  in  debt.  These  things  being 
thus,  I  did  think  it  my  duty  to  give  you  this  account, — though 
it  be  wearisome  even  to  yourselves  and  to  me. 

Now  if  I  had  the  tongue  of  an  Angel ;  if  I  was  so  certainly 
inspired  as  the  holy  men  of  God  have  been,  I  could  rejoice, 
for  your  sakes,  and  for  these  Nations'  sakes,  and  for  the  sake 
of  God,  and  of  His  Cause  which  we  have  all  been  engaged  in. 
If  I  could  move  affections  in  you  to  that  which,  if  you  do  it, 
will  save  this  Nation  !  If  not, — you  plunge  it,  to  aU  human 
appearance,  **  it  "  and  aU  Interests,  yea  and  all  Protestants, 
in  the  world,  into  irrecoverable  ruin  ! 

Therefore  I  pray  and  beseech  you,  in  the  name  of  Christ, 
Show  yourselves  to  be  men  ;  "  quit  yourselves  like  men  !  " 
It  does  not  infer  any  reproach  if  you  do  show  yourselves  men  ; 
Christian  men, — which  alone  will  make  you  '*  quit  yourselves." 
I  do  not  think  that,  to  this  work  you  have  in  hand,  a  neutral 
spirit  will  do.  That  is  a  Laodicean  spirit ;  and  we  know  what 
God  said  of  that  Church  ;  it  was  "  lukewarm,"  and  therefore 
he  would  "  spew  it  out  of  His  mouth  !  "  It  is  not  a  neutral 
spirit,  that  is  incumbent  upon  you.  And  if  not  a  neutral 
spirit,  it  is  much  less  a  stupefied  spirit,  inclining  you,  in  the 
least  disposition,  the  wrong  way  !  Men  are  in  their  private 
consciences,  every  day  making  shipwreck  ;  and  it's  no  wonder 
if  these  can  shake  hands  with  persons  of  reprobate  Interests  ; — 
such,  give  me  leave  to  think,  are  the  Popish  Interests.     For  the 


28  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

Apostle  brands  them  so,  "  Having  seared  consciences."  Though 
I  do  not  judge  every  man  ; — but  the  ringleaders  are  such. 
The  Scriptures  foretold  there  should  be  such.  It  is  not  such 
a  spirit  that  will  carry  this  work  on  !  It  is  men  in  a  Christian 
state  ;  who  have  works  with  faith  ;  who  know  how  to  lay  hold 
on  Christ  for  remission  "  of  sins,"  till  a  man  be  brought  to 
*'  glory  in  hope."  Such  an  hope  kindled  in  men's  spirits  will 
actuate  them  to  such  ends  as  you  are  tending  to  ;  and  so  many 
as  are  partakers  of  that,  and  do  own  your  standings  wherein 
the  Providence  of  God  has  set  and  called  you  to  this  work, 
"  so  many  "  will  carry  it  on. 

If  men,  through  scruple,  be  opposite,  you  cannot  take  them 
by  the  hand  to  carry  them  "  along  with  you," — it  were  absurd  ; 
if  a  man  be  scrupling  the  plain  truth  before  him,  it  is  in  vain 
to  meddle  with  him.  He  hath  placed  another  business  in  his 
mind  ;  he  is  saying,  "  Oh,  if  we  could  but  exercise  wisdom 
to  gain  Civil  Liberty, — Religion  would  follow  !  "  Certainly 
there  are  such  men,  who  are  not  maliciously  blind,  whom  God, 
for  some  cause,  exercises.  It  cannot  be  expected  that  they 
should  do  anything  !  These  men, — they  must  demonstrate 
that  they  are  in  bonds — Could  we  have  carried  it  thus  far, 
if  we  had  sat  disputing  in  that  manner  ?  I  must  profess  I 
reckon  that  difficulty  more  than  all  the  wrestling  with  flesh 
and  blood.  Doubting,  hesitating  men,  they  are  not  fit  for  your 
work.  You  must  not  expect  that  men  of  hesitating  spirits, 
under  the  bondage  of  scruples,  will  be  able  to  carry  on  this 
work,  much  less  such  as  are  merely  carnal,  natural ;  such  as 
having  an  "  outward  profession  of  Godliness,"  whom  the 
Apostle  speaks  of  so  often,  "  are  enemies  to  the  cross  of  Christ  ; 
whose  god  is  their  beUy  ;  whose  glory  is  in  their  shame  ;  who 
mind  earthly  things."  Do  you  think  these  men  will  rise  to  such 
a  spiritual  heat  for  the  Nation  as  shall  carry  you  a  cause  like 
this  ;  as  will  meet  "  and  defy  "  all  the  oppositions  that  the 
Devil  and  wicked  men  can  make  ? 

Give  me  leave  to  tell  you, — those  that  are  called  to  this 
work,  it  will  not  depend  "  for  them  "  upon  formalities,  nor 
notions,  nor  speeches  !  I  do  not  look  the  work  should  be  done 
by  these.  "  No  "  ;  but  by  men  of  honest  hearts,  engaged  to 
God  ;  strengthened  by  Providence  ;  enlightened  in  his  words, 
to  know  His  word, — to  which  he  has  set  His  Seal,  sealed  with 
the  blood  of  His  Son,  with  the  blood  of  His  servants  ;   that  is 


CROMWELL  29 

such  a  spirit  as  will  carry  on  this  work.  Therefore  I  beseech 
you,  do  not  dispute  of  unnecessary  and  unprofitable  things 
which  may  divert  you  from  carrying  on  so  glorious  a  work 
as  this  is.  I  think  en)ery  objection  that  ariseth  is  not  to  be 
answered  ;  nor  have  I  time  for  it.  I  say  Look  up  to  God  ; 
have  peace  among  yourselves.  Know  assuredly  that  if  I  have 
interest;  I  am  by  the  voice  of  the  people  the  Supreme  Magis- 
trate ;  and,  it  may  be,  do  know  somewhat  that  might  satisfy 
my  conscience,  if  I  stood  in  doubt !  But  it  is  a  union,  really 
it  is  a  union,  "  this  "  between  you  and  me  :  and  both  of  us 
united  in  faith  and  love  to  Jesus  Christ  and  to  His  pecuhar 
Interest  in  the  world, — that  must  ground  this  work.  And  in 
thai,  if  I  have  any  peculiar  Interest  which  is  personal  to  myself, 
which  is  not  subservient  to  the  PubUc  end, — it  were  not  an 
extravagant  thing  for  me  to  curse  myself  :  because  I  know 
God  will  curse  me,  if  I  have  !  I  have  learned  too  much  of  God, 
to  daUy  with  Him,  and  to  be  bold  with  Him,  in  these  things. 
And  I  hope  I  never  shaU  be  bold  with  Him  ; — though  I  can 
be  bold  with  men,  if  Christ  be  pleased  to  assist  ! 

I  say,  if  there  be  love  between  us,  so  that  the  Nations  may 
say,  "  These  are  knit  together  in  one  bond,  to  promote  **  the 
glor>^  of  God  against  the  Common  Enemy  ;  to  suppress  every- 
thing that  is  Evil,  and  encourage  whatsoever  is  of  Godliness  " 
— yea,  the  Nation  will  bless  you  !  And  really  that  and  nothing 
else  \vill  work  off  these  Disaffections  from  the  minds  of  men  ; 
which  are  great, — perhaps  greater  than  aU  the  *'  other  " 
oppositions  you  can  meet  with.  I  do  not  know  what  I  say, 
when  I  speak  of  these  things  I  speak  my  heart  before  God  ; 
and  as  I  said  before,  I  dare  not  be  bold  with  Him.  I  have  a 
little  faith  :  I  have  a  little  hved  by  faith,  and  therein  I  may 
be  "  bold."  If  I  spoke  other  than  the  affections  and  secrets 
of  my  heart,  I  know  He  would  not  bear  it  at  my  hands  ! 
Therefore  in  the  fear  and  name  of  God  ;  Go  on,  with  love  and 
integrity,  against  whatever  arises  of  contrary  to  those  ends 
which  you  know  and  have  been  told  of ;  and  the  blessing 
of  God  go  with  you, — and  the  blessing  of  God  will  go 
with  you  ! 

I  have  but  one  thing  more  to  say.  I  know  it  is  troublesome  ; 
— But  I  did  read  a  Psalm  yesterday  ;  which  truly  may  not  ill 
become  both  me  to  teU  you  of,  and  you  to  observe.  It  is  the 
Eighty-fifth  Psalm  ;    it  is  very  instructive  and  significant ; 


30  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

and  though  I  do  but  a  Httle  touch  upon  it,  I  desire  your  perusal 
at  pleasure. 

It  begins  :  "  Lord,  Thou  hast  been  very  favourable  to  Thy 
Land  ;  Thou  hast  brought  back  the  captivity  of  Jacob.  Thou 
hast  forgiven  the  iniquity  of  Thy  People  ;  Thou  hast  covered 
all  their  sin.  Thou  hast  taken  away  all  the  fierceness  of  Thy 
wrath  ;  Thou  hast  turned  Thyself  from  the  fierceness  of  Thine 
anger.  Turn  us,  O  God  of  our  salvation,  and  cause  Thine 
anger  towards  us  to  cease.  Wilt  Thou  be  angry  with  us  for 
ever  ;  wilt  Thou  draw  out  Thine  anger  to  all  generations  ? 
Wilt  Thou  not  revive  us  again,  that  Thy  people  may  rejoice 
in  Thee  ?  "  Then  he  calls  upon  God  as  "  the  God  of  his 
salvation,"  and  then  saith  he  :  "I  will  hear  what  God  the  Lord 
will  speak  :  for  He  will  speak  peace  unto  His  people,  and  to 
His  Saints  ;  but  let  them  not  turn  again  to  folly.  Surely  His 
salvation  is  nigh  them  that  fear  Him."  Oh — **  that  glory 
may  dwell  in  our  land  !  Mercy  and  Truth  are  met  together  ; 
Righteousness  and  Peace  have  kissed  each  other.  Truth  shall 
spring  out  of  the  Earth,  and  Righeousness  shall  look  down  from 
Heaven.  Yea  the  Lord  shall  give  that  which  is  good,  and  our 
Land  shall  yield  her  increase.  Righteousness  shall  go  before 
Him,  and  shall  set  us  in  the  way  of  His  steps."  Truly  I  wish 
that  this  Psalm,  as  it  is  written  in  the  Book,  might  be  better 
written  in  our  hearts.  That  we  might  say  as  David,  "  Thou 
hast  done  this,"  and  "  Thou  hast  done  that  "  ;  "  Thou  hast 
pardoned  our  sins ;  Thou  hast  taken  away  our  iniquities  !  " 
Whither  can  we  go  to  a  better  God  ?  For  "  He  hath  done  it." 
It  is  to  Him  any  Nation  may  come  in  their  extremity,  for  the 
taking  away  of  His  wrath.  How  did  He  do  it  ?  "  By 
pardoning  their  sins,  by  taking  away  their  iniquities  "  !  If 
we  can  but  cry  unto  Him,  He  will  "  turn  and  take  away  our 
sins." — Then  let  us  listen  to  Him.  Then  let  us  consult  and 
meet  in  Parliament ;  and  ask  Him  counsel,  and  hear  what  He 
saith,  "  for  He  will  speak  peace  unto  His  People."  If  you  be 
the  People  of  God,  He  will  speak  peace  ; — and  we  will  not  turn 
again  to  folly. 

'*  Folly  "  :  a  great  deal  of  grudging  in  the  Nation  that  we 
cannot  have  our  horse-races,  cock-fightings,  and  the  like  ! 
I  do  not  think  these  are  lawful,  except  to  make  them  recrea- 
tions that  we  will  not  endure  "  for  necessary  ends  "  to  be 
abridged  of  them  : — Till  God  has  brought  us  to  another  spirit 


CROMWELL  31 

than  this,  He  will  not  bear  with  us.  Ay  "  but  He  bears  with 
them  in  France  "  ;  "  They  in  France  are  so  and  so  !  "■ — 
Have  they  the  Gospel  as  we  have  ?     They  have  seen  the  sun 

but  a  little  ;  we  have  great  lights. If  God  give  you  a  spirit 

of  Reformation,  you  will  preserve  this  Nation  from  "  turning 
again  "  to  those  fooleries  ; — and  what  will  the  end  be  ?  Com- 
fort and  blessing.  Then  "  Mercy  and  Truth  shall  meet  toge- 
ther." Here  is  a  great  deal  of  "  truth  "  among  professors, 
but  veiy  little  "  mercy  "  !  They  are  ready  to  cut  the  throats 
of  one  another.  But  when  we  are  brought  into  the  right  way, 
we  shall  be  merciful  as  well  as  orthodox  ;  and  we  know  who  it 
is  that  saith,  "  If  a  man  could  speak  with  the  tongues  of  men 
and  angels,  and  yet  want  that,  he  is  but  sounding  brass  and  a 
tinkling  cymbal  "  ! — 

Therefore  I  beseech  you  in  the  name  of  God,  set  your  hearts 
to  this  "  work."  And  if  you  set  your  hearts  to  it,  then  you  will 
sing  Luther's  Psalm.  That  is  a  rare  Psalm  for  a  Christian  ! 
— and  if  he  set  his  heart  open,  and  can  approve  it  to  God,  we 
shall  hear  him  say,  **  God  is  our  refuge  and  strength,  a  very 
present  help  in  time  of  trouble."  If  Pope  and  Spaniard,  and 
Devil  and  all,  set  themselves  against  us, — though  they  should 
*'  compass  us  like  bees,"  as  it  is  in  the  Hundred  and  eighteenth 
Psalm, — yet  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  we  should  destroy  them  ! 
And,  as  it  is  in  this  Psalm  of  Luther's :  **  We  will  not  fear," 
though  the  "  Earth  be  removed,  and  though  the  mountains  be 
carried  into  the  middle  of  the  sea  ;  though  the  waters  thereof 
roar  and  be  troubled  ;  though  the  mountains  shake  with  the 
swelling  thereof."  "  There  is  a  river,  the  streams  whereof 
shall  make  glad  the  City  of  God.  God  is  in  the  midst  of  her  ; 
she  shall  not  be  moved."  Then  he  repeats  two  or  three  times, 
'*  The  Lord  of  Hosts  is  with  us  ;  the  God  of  Jacob  is  our 
refuge." 

I  have  done.  All  I  have  to  say  is,  To  pray  God  that  He  may 
bless  you  with  His  presence  ;  that  He  who  has  your  hearts 
and  mine  would  show  His  presence  in  the  midst  of  us. 

I  desire  you  will  go  together  and  choose  your  Speaker. 


SIR   ROBERT  WALPOLE 

Altogether  Sir  Robert  Walpole  was  virtually  Prime  Minister 
for  more  than  twenty  years,  yet  he  has  left  very  few  memorable 
speeches  behind  him.  The  most  famous  is  the  speech  by  which 
he  procured  the  defeat  of  the  Peerage  Bill  in  the  House  of 
Commons.  This  has  always  been  regarded  as  a  masterpiece 
of  abstract  reasoning.  But  it  is  also  essentially  practical. 
It  is  a  conclusive  demonstration  that  to  limit  the  royal  prero- 
gative of  making  peers  would  destroy  the  only  available 
method  of  restoring  political  balance  between  the  two  Houses 
of  Parliament.  The  speech  is  characteristic  of  Walpole 
because  it  combines  shrewd  knowledge  of  the  world  with  argu- 
mentative and  debating  power  of  the  very  highest  order. 
Moreover  it  was  a  victory  of  Walpole  in  Opposition,  when  he 
had  no  official  resources  at  his  command  for  the  influence  of 
votes.  It  is,  therefore^  an  excellent  specimen  of  his  Parlia- 
mentary style,  pointed  and  argumentative,  practical  and 
shrewd.  It  was  not  Walpole's  way  to  make  eloquent  and 
stirring  appeals.  He  aimed  rather  at  converting  ordinary 
people  to  his  own  plain,  prosaic  views  of  what  was  required 
for  the  public  service.  He  eschewed  all  ornament,  except  on 
very  rare  occasions.  His  object  was  always  to  achieve  a  definite 
result  by  adapting  his  methods  to  the  tone  and  temper  of  his 
audience.  In  his  methods  there  is  no  waste.  He  never  beats 
about  the  bush.  Between  his  premises  and  his  conclusion  there 
is  merely  the  interval  required  for  bringing  them  into  logical 
contact.  Nothing  could  be  better  adapted  for  its  purpose  than 
a  style  which  leads  so  directly,  and  yet  so  inevitably,  to  the 
desired  result.  His  great  object  was  to  bring  the  House  of  Lords 
into  harmony  with  the  House  of  Commons  by  any  constitutional 
means.  Walpole  was  hardly  ever  eloquent.  He  aimed  at 
convincing  his  audience,  not  by  raising  their  thoughts,  but 
by  appealing  to  their  inclinations.  Instead  of  clothing  ordin- 
ary ideas  in  extraordinary  language,  he  put  into  a  plain  and 

32 


WALPOLE  33 

homely  style  the  wisdom  of  a  great  practical  statesman. 
Although  he  talked  in  a  very  cynical  fashion  about  disinterested 
motives  and  public  virtue,  he  was  less  corrupt  in  his  methods 
than  some  men  who  used  the  language  of  lofty  and  quixotic 
patriotism.  Such  of  his  speeches  as  have  come  down  to  us 
show  that  he  argued  in  a  very  clear,  and  persuasive  manner 
those  points  which  he  wished  to  bring  out,  and  to  drive  home. 
He  was  a  master  of  the  style  which  appeals  to  men  of  the  world. 
He  is  never  sophistical,  always  candid  and  straightforward, 
in  his  treatment  of  the  subject.  He  was  the  exact  reverse  of 
Bolingbroke,  who  sacrificed  everything  to  rhetorical  effect, 
and  failed  to  impress  his  audience  even  when  they  admired 
his  phrases.  That  Bolingbroke  was  dishonest  in  concealing 
and  denying  his  intrigues  with  the  Pretender  is  not  the  point. 
He  might  have  been  secretly  a  Jacobite  and  yet  have  succeeded 
in  carrying  the  House  of  Commons,  and  the  House  of  Lords, 
away  with  him.  But  Bolingbroke's  phrases  are  phrases,  and 
nothing  more.  They  did  not  produce  any  effect  except 
admiration  for  his  rhetorical  skill.  Walpole's  speeches 
convinced. 

The  Peerage  Bill,  House  of  Commons,  Dec.  Sth,  1719^ 

Among  the  Romans,  the  temple  of  fame  was  placed  behind 
the  temple  of  virtue,  to  denote  that  there  was  no  coming  to  the 
temple  of  fame,  but  through  the  temple  of  virtue.  But  if 
this  bill  is  passed  into  law,  one  of  the  most  powerful  incentives 
to  virtue  would  be  taken  away,  since  there  would  be  no  arriving 
at  honour,  but  through  the  winding-sheet  of  an  old  decrepit 
lord,  or  the  grave  of  an  extinct  noble  family  :  a  policy  very 
different  from  that  glorious  and  enlightened  nation,  who  made 
it  their  pride  to  hold  out  to  the  world  illustrious  examples  of 
merited  elevation  : 

"  Patere  honoris  scirent  ut  cuncti  viam." 
It   is    very    far    from    my    thoughts    to    depreciate    the 

^  The  object  of  this  Bill  was  to  limit  the  prerogative  of  the  Crown 
in  making  Peers,  by  providing  that  the  number  should  not  be  increased 
by  more  than  six. 

3— {a  1 70) 


34  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

advantages,  or  detract  from  the  respect  due  to  illustrious 
birth  ;  for  though  the  philosopher  may  say  with  the  poet : 

"  Et  genus  et  proavos,  et  quae  non  fecimus  ipsi, 
Vix  ea  nostra  voco  "  ; 

yet  the  claim  derived  from  that  advantage,  though  fortuitous, 
is  so  generally  and  so  justly  conceded,  that  every  endeavour 
to  subvert  the  principle  would  merit  contempt  and  abhorrence. 
But  though  illustrious  birth  forms  one  undisputed  title  to  pre- 
eminence and  superior  consideration,  yet  surely  it  ought  not 
to  be  the  only  one.  The  origin  of  high  titles  was  derived 
from  the  will  of  the  sovereign  to  reward  signal  services,  or 
conspicuous  merit,  by  a  recompense  which,  surviving  to 
posterity,  should  display  the  virtues  of  the  receiver,  and  the 
gratitude  of  the  donor.  Is  merit  then  so  rarely  discernible, 
or  is  gratitude  so  small  a  virtue  in  our  days,  that  the  one  must 
be  supposed  to  be  its  own  reward  and  the  other  limited  to  a 
barren  display  of  impotent  goodwill  ?  Had  this  bill  originated 
with  some  noble  peer  of  distinguished  ancestry,  it  would  have 
excited  less  surprise  ;  a  desire  to  exclude  from  a  participation 
of  honours  is  no  novelty  in  persons  of  that  class  :  QuoA  ex 
aliorum  mentis  sihi  arrogant,  id  mihi  ex  meis  ascrihi  nolunt. 

But  it  is  a  matter  of  just  surprise,  that  a  bill  of  this  nature 
should  either  have  been  projected,  or  at  least  promoted,  by  a 
gentleman  who  was,  not  long  ago,  seated  among  us,  and  who, 
having  got  into  the  house  of  Peers,  is  now  desirous  to  shut  the 
door  after  him. 

When  great  alterations  in  the  constitution  are  to  be  made, 
the  experiment  should  be  tried  for  a  short  time  before  the 
proposed  change  is  finally  carried  into  execution,  lest  it  should 
produce  evil  instead  of  good  ;  but  in  this  case,  when  the  bill 
is  once  sanctioned  by  Parliament,  there  can  be  no  future  hopes 
of  redress,  because  the  Upper  House  will  always  oppose  the 
repeal  of  an  act  which  has  so  considerably  increased  their 
power.  The  great  unanimity  with  which  this  bill  has  passed 
the  Lords,  ought  to  inspire  some  jealousy  in  the  Commons  ; 
for  it  must  be  obvious,  that  whatever  the  Lords  gain  must  be 
acquired  at  the  loss  of  the  Commons,  and  the  diminution  of 
the  royal  prerogative  ;  and  that  in  all  disputes  between  the 
Lords  and  Commons,  when  the  House  of  Lords  is  immutable, 
the  Commons  must,  sooner  or  later,  be  obliged  to  recede. 

The  view  of   the  ministry  in  framing  this  bill  is  plainly 


WALPOLE  35 


nothing  but  to  secure  their  power  in  the  House  of  Lords.  The 
principal  argument  on  which  the  necessity  of  it  is  founded  is 
drawn  from  the  mischief  occasioned  by  the  creation  of  twelve 
new  peers  during  the  reign  of  Queen  Anne,  for  the  purpose  of 
carrying  an  infamous  peace  through  the  House  of  Lords  ; 
that  was  only  a  temporary  measure,  whereas  the  mischief  to 
be  occasioned  by  this  bill  will  be  perpetual.  It  creates  thirty- 
one  peers  by  authority  of  Parliament ;  so  extraordinary^  a  step 
cannot  be  supposed  to  be  taken  without  some  sinister  design 
in  future.  The  ministry  want  no  additional  strength  in  the 
House  of  Lords  for  conducting  the  common  affairs  of  govern- 
ment, as  it  is  sufficiently  proved  by  the  unanimity  with  which 
they  have  carried  through  this  bill.  If,  therefore,  they  think 
it  necessary  to  acquire  additional  strength,  it  must  be  done  with 
views  and  intentions  more  extravagant  and  hostile  to  the 
constitution,  than  any  which  have  yet  been  attempted. 
The  bill  itself  is  of  a  most  artful  and  insidious  nature.  The 
immediate  creation  of  nine  Scotch  peers,  and  the  reserva- 
tion of  six  English  peers  for  a  necessary  occasion,  is  of  double 
use  ;  to  be  ready  for  the  House  of  Lords  if  wanted,  and  to 
engage  three  times  the  number  in  the  House  of  Commons 
by  hopes  and  promises. 

To  sanction  this  attempt,  the  King  is  induced  to  affect  to 
wave  some  part  of  his  prerogative  ;  but  this  is  merely  an 
ostensible  renunciation  unfounded  in  fact  or  reason.  I  am 
desirous  to  treat  of  all  points  relating  to  the  private  affairs  of 
his  Majesty  with  the  utmost  tenderness  and  caution,  but  I 
should  wish  to  ask  the  House,  and  I  think  I  can  anticipate  the 
answer  :  Has  any  such  question  been  upon  the  tapis,  as  no 
man  would  forgive  the  authors,  that  should  put  them  under  the 
necessity  of  voting  against  either  side  ?  Are  there  any  mis- 
fortunes, which  every  honest  man  secretly  laments  and  bewails, 
and  would  think  the  last  of  mischiefs,  should  they  ever  become 
the  subject  of  public  and  parliamentary  conversations  ? 
Cannot  numbers  that  hear  me  testify,  from  the  solicitations 
and  whispers  they  have  met  with,  that  there  are  men  ready 
and  determined  to  attempt  these  things  if  they  had  a  prospect 
of  success  ?  If  they  have  thought,  but  I  hope  they  are  mis- 
taken in  their  opinion  of  this  House,  that  the  chief  obstacle 
would  arise  in  the  House  of  Lords,  where  they  have  always  been 
tender  upon  personal  points,  especially  to  any  of  their  own 


36  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

body,  does  not  this  project  enable  them  to  carry  any  question 
through  the  House  of  Lords  ?  Must  not  the  twenty-five 
Scotch  peers  accept  upon  any  terms,  or  be  for  ever  excluded  ? 
Or  will  not  twenty-five  be  found  in  all  Scotland  that  will  ? 
How  great  will  the  temptation  be  likewise  to  fix  English,  to 
fill  the  present  vacancies  ?  And  shall  we  then,  with  our  eyes 
open,  take  this  step,  which  I  cannot  but  look  upon  as  the 
beginning  of  woe  and  confusion  ;  and  shall  we,  under  these 
apprehensions,  break  through  the  union,  and  shut  up  the  door 
of  honour  ?  It  certainly  will  have  that  effect ;  nay,  the  very 
argument  advanced  in  its  support,  that  it  will  add  weight  to 
the  Commons  by  keeping  the  rich  men  there,  admits  that  it 
will  be  an  exclusion. 

But  we  are  told  that  his  Majesty  has  voluntarily  consented 
to  this  limitation  of  his  prerogative.  It  may  be  true  ;  but  may 
not  the  King  have  been  deceived  ?  Which  if  it  is  ever  to  be 
supposed,  must  be  admitted  in  this  case.  It  is  incontrovertible 
that  kings  have  been  over-ruled  by  the  importunity  of  their 
ministers  to  remove,  or  to  take  into  administration,  persons 
who  are  disagreeable  to  them.  The  character  of  the  King 
furnishes  us  also  a  strong  proof  that  he  has  been  deceived, 
for  although  it  is  a  fact,  that  in  Hanover,  where  he  possesses 
absolute  power,  he  never  tyrannised  over  his  subjects,  or  des- 
potically exercised  his  authority,  yet,  can  one  instance  be 
produced  when  he  ever  gave  up  a  prerogative  ? 

If  the  constitution  is  to  be  amended  in  the  House  of  Lords^ 
the  greatest  abuses  ought  to  be  first  corrected.  But  what  is 
the  abuse  against  which  this  bill  so  vehemently  inveighs,  and 
which  it  is  intended  to  correct  ?  The  abuse  of  the  prerogative 
in  creating  an  occasional  number  of  peers,  is  a  prejudice  only 
to  the  Lords,  it  can  rarely  be  a  prejudice  to' the  Commons,  but 
must  generally  be  exercised  in  their  favour  ;  and  should  it 
be  argued,  that  in  a  case  of  a  difference  between  the  two  Houses 
the  King  may  exercise  that  branch  of  his'  prerogative,  with  a 
view  to  force  the  Commons  to  recede,  we  may  reply,  that  upon 
a  difference  with  the  Commons,  the  King  possesses  his  negative, 
and  the  exercise  of  that  negative  would  be  less  culpable  than 
making  peers  to  screen  himself. 

But  the  strongest  argument  against  the  biU  is,  that  it 
will  not  only  be  a  discouragement  to  virtue  and  merit,  but 
would  endanger  our  excellent  constitution  ;    for  as  there  is  a 


WALPOLE  37 

due  balance  between  the  three  branches  of  the  legislature, 
it  wiU  destroy  that  balance,  and  consequently  subvert  the  whole 
constitution,  by  causing  one  of  the  three  powers,  which  are  now 
dependent  on  each  other,  to  preponderate  in  the  scale.  The 
Crown  is  dependent  upon  the  Commons  by  the  power  of 
granting  money  ;  the  Conunons  are  dependent  on  the  Crown 
by  the  power  of  dissolution.  The  Lords  will  now  be  made 
independent  of  both. 

The  sixteen  elective  Scotch  peers  already  admit  themselves 
to  be  a  dead  court  weight,  yet  the  same  sixteen  are  now  to  be 
made  hereditary,  and  nine  added  to  their  number.  These  twenty- 
five,  under  the  influence  of  corrupt  ministers,  may  find  their 
account  in  betraying  their  trust ;  the  majority  of  the  Lords 
may  also  find  their  account  in  supporting  such  ministers  ;  but 
the  Commons,  and  the  Commons  only,  must  suffer  all,  and 
be  deprived  of  every  advantage.  If  the  proposed  measure 
destroys  two  negatives  in  the  Crown,  it  gives  a  negative  to 
these  twenty-five  united,  and  confers  a  power,  superior  to  that 
of  the  King  himself,  on  the  head  of  a  clan,  who  will  have  the 
power  of  recommending  many.  The  Scotch  commoners  can 
have  no  other  view  in  supporting  this  measure'  but  the  expected 
aggrandizement  of  their  own  chiefs.  It  wiU  dissolve  the  alle- 
giance of  the  Scotch  peers  who  are  not  amongst  the  twenty-five, 
and  who  can  never  hope  for  the  benefit  of  an  election  to  be 
peers  of  Parhament,  and  almost  enact  obedience  from  the 
Sovereign  to  the  betrayers  of  the  constitution. 

The  present  view  of  the  biU  is  dangerous  ;  the  view  to 
posterity,  personal  and  unpardonable  ;  it  will  make  the  Lords 
masters  of  the  King,  according  to  their  own  confession,  when 
they  admit  that  a  change  of  administration  renders  a  new 
creation  of  peers  necessary  ;  for  by  precluding  the  King  from 
making  peers  in  future  it  at  the  same  time  precludes  him  from 
changing  the  present  administration,  who  will  naturally  fill 
the  vacancies  with  their  own  creatures  ;  and  the  new  peers 
will  adhere  to  the  first  minister  with  the  sarae  zeal  and 
unanimity  as  those  created  by  Oxford  adhered  to  him. 

If,  when  the  Parliament  was  made  septennial,  the  power 
of  dissolving  it  before  the  end  of  seven  years  had  been 
wrested  from  the  Crown,  would  not  such  an  alteration  have 
added  immense  authority  to  the  Commons  ?  and  yet,  the 
prerogative  of  the  Crown  in  dissolving  Parliaments  may  be, 


38  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

and  has  been,  oftener  abused  than  the  power  of  creating 
peers. 

But  it  may  be  observed  that  the  King,  for  his  own 
sake,  will  rarely  make  a  great  number  of  peers,  for  they, 
being  usually  created  by  the  influence  of  the  first  minister, 
soon  become,  on  a  change  of  administration,  a  weight  against 
the  Crown  ;  and  had  Queen  Anne  lived,  the  truth  of  this 
observation  would  have  been  verified  in  the  case  of  most 
of  the  twelve  peers  made  by  Oxford.  Let  me  ask,  however, 
is  the  abuse  of  any  prerogative  a  sufficient  reason  for  totally 
annihilating  that  prerogative  ?  Under  that  consideration,  the 
power  of  dissolving  Parliaments  ought  to  be  taken  away, 
because  that  power  has  been  more  exercised,  and  more  abused 
than  any  of  the  other  prerogatives  ;  yet  in  1641,  when  the 
King  had  assented  to  a  law  that  disabled  him  from  proroguing 
or  dissolving  Parliament,  without  the  consent  of  both  Houses, 
he  was  from  that  time  under  subjection  to  the  Parliament,  and 
from  then  followed  all  the  subsequent  mischiefs,  and  his  own 
destruction.  It  may  also  be  asked,  whether  the  prerogative 
of  making  peace  and  war  has  never  been  abused  ?  I  might 
here  call  to  your  recollection  the  peace  of  Utrecht,  and  the 
present  war  with  Spain.  Yet  who  will  presume  to  advise  that 
the  power  of  making  peace  and  war  should  be  taken  from  the 
Crown  ? 

How  can  the  Lords  expect  the  Commons  to  give  their 
concurrence  to  a  bill  by  which  they  and  their  posterity  are  to 
be  for  ever  excluded  from  the  peerage  ?  how  would  they  them- 
selves receive  a  bill  which  should  prevent  a  baron  from  being 
made  a  viscount,  a  viscount  an  earl,  an  earl  a  marquis,  and  a 
marquis  a  duke  ?  Would  they  consent  to  limit  the  number 
of  any  rank  of  peerage  ?  Certainly  none  ;  unless,  perhaps, 
the  dukes.  If  the  pretence  for  this  measure  is  that  it  will 
tend  to  secure  the  freedom  of  Parliament,  I  say  that  there 
are  many  other  steps  more  important  and  less  equivocal,  such 
as  the  discontinuance  of  bribes  and  pensions. 

That  this  bill  will  secure  the  liberty  of  Parliament  I  totally 
deny  ;  it  will  secure  a  great  preponderance  to  the  peers  ;  it 
will  form  them  into  a  compact  impenetrable  phalanx,  by  giving 
them  the  power  to  exclude  in  all  cases  of  extinction  and 
creation  all  such  persons  from  their  body,  who  may  be  obnox- 
ious to  them.     In  the  instances  we  have  seen  of  their  judgment 


WALPOLE  39 

in  some  late  cases  sufficient  marks  of  partiality  may  be  found 
to  put  us  on  our  guard  against  committing  to  them  the  power 
they  would  derive  from  this  bill,  of  judging  the  right  of  latent 
or  dormant  titles,  when  their  verdict  would  be  of  such  immense 
importance.  If  gentlemen  will  not  be  convinced  by  argument, 
at  least  let  them  not  shut  their  ears  to  the  dreadful  example 
of  former  times  ;  let  them  recollect  that  the  overweening 
disposition  of  the  great  barons,  to  aggrandize  their  own  dignity, 
occasioned  them  to  exclude  the  lesser  barons,  and  to  that 
circumstance  may  be  fairly  attributable  the  sanguinary  wars 
which  so  long  desolated  the  country. 


WILLIAM   PITT,   EARL   OF  CHATHAM 

Chatham's  speeches  were  not  of  the  debating  sort.  They 
made  a  profound  and  prodigious  effect  because  they  appealed 
to  the  hearts  and  consciences  of  his  hearers.  He  was  a  states- 
man witE  a  long-sighted  policy,  not  aiming  at  immediate 
results,  but  taking  a  wide  grasp  of  the  present,  and  projecting 
his  gaze  far  into  the  future.  He  had  a  serious  and  sober 
conviction  that  he,  and  he  alone,  could  save  the  country.  By 
saving  it  he  did  not  merely  mean  protecting  it  against  invasion. 
He  regarded  the  extension  of  British  power  in  America  and 
India  as  essential  to  the  permanence  of  England  in  her  position 
among  the  leading  nations  of  the  world.  He  emancipated 
himself  from  the  European  tradition,  the  view  that  this 
country  had  simply  to  hold  its  own  in  the  balance  of  continental 
forces.  His  doctrine  that  France  could  be  successfully  encoun- 
tered both  east  and  west  of  Europe  was  altogether  beyond  the 
range  of  contemporary  ideas.  How  far  he  deliberately  and 
consciously  carried  it  out,  how  far  he  was  drawn  beyond  his 
original  designs  by  the  progress  of  events,  has  often  been 
disputed.  He  is  entitled  to  be  judged  by  results.  Although 
Chatham's  career  is  anything  rather  than  consistent  if  tried  by 
ordinary  standards,  it  has  a  unity  of  spacious  greatness  if 
submitted  to  the  test  of  what  precedes  and  what  followed  it. 
He  had  the  imagination  which  stands  for  knowledge  of  the 
future,  which  takes  the  place  of  prophecy,  which  enables  its 
possessor  to  discern  the  tendency  of  movements  too  gradual 
to  be  measured  by  human  instruments.  If  he  did  not  talk 
about  the  expansion  of  England,  that  was  the  idea  which  always 
fiUed  his  mind.  Among  contemporary  statesmen  he  seemed 
unfixed,  incalculable,  hard  to  classify  or  understand.  He 
had  not  the  knowledge  or  the  method  by  which  men  commonly 
succeed  in  public  business.     But  he  had  the  gift  of  discerning 

40    . 


L 


CHATHAM  41 

the  direction  which  events  would  take.  He  felt  that  the 
greatness  of  this  country  would  he  not  in  successful  rivalry  on 
the  Continent,  but  in  the  creation  of  communities  and  the 
establishment  of  dominions  beyond  the  scope  of  diplomatic 
intrigue-  His  is  a  character  to  be  judged  by  history,  and  by 
achievement,  not  by  the  temporary  failures  or  triumphs 
recorded  against  him  or  in  his  favour  from  year  to  year.  Chat- 
ham will  stand  ordeals  which  other  statesmen,  in  some  respects 
his  equals  or  superiors,  cannot  for  a  moment  bear. 

It  must  always  be  remembered  that  Chatham  spoke  through 
Parhament  to  the  nation,  and  that  his  speeches  were  therefore 
framed  with  a  very  different  art  from  that  which  makes  an 
immediate  impression  in  debate.  He  intended  that  what  he 
said  should  be  remembered,  and  he  chose  his  words,  as  well  as 
his  topics  accordingly.  When  he  referred  to  Magna  Charta, 
the  Petition  of  Right,  and  the  Bill  of  Rights,  as  the  Bible  of 
the  English  Constitution,  he  was  appealing  to  the  love  of 
Hberty,  of  the  liberty  which  he  thought  would  be  crushed  by 
the  American  War.  His  view  of  that  struggle  was  peculiarly 
his  own.  Until  France  joined  in  it,  he  regarded  it  as  purely 
a  domestic  quarrel  in  which  American  rebels  and  Whigs  at 
home  were  alike  engaged  in  contending  against  personal 
government.  His  famous  declaration  that  the  British  Parha- 
ment had  no  right  to  tax  the  American  colonies  may  not  be 
theoretically  sound.  But  it  rested  upon  the  practical  doctrine 
that  people  are  only  to  be  taxed  by  their  own  representatives, 
and  Chatham  accompanied  it  by  the  argument  that  grants  to 
the  Crown  were  from  the  Commons  alone.  It  was  character- 
istic of  Chatham  that  he  laid  down  this  proposition  in  the 
House  of  Lords,  where  it  naturally  met  with  little  favour. 
When  we  consider  what  the  representation  of  the  people  was 
in  the  eighteenth  century,  we  must  acknowledge  that  it  required 
no  small  courage  to  insist  upon  a  point  which,  though  silently 
recognised,  was  kept  in  the  background,  even  by  the  House 
of    Commons,    except    at    grave    constitutional    emergencies. 


42  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

Neither  it  nor  the  right  of  taxing  the  colonies  has  ever  been 
formally  decided  by  Parliament.  It  remains  within  the  com- 
petence of  Parliament  to  override  every  Colonial  Legislature, 
just  as  the  House  of  Lords  may  refuse  its  assent  to  the 
imposition  or  the  repeal  of  any  tax. 

Pitt's  first  speech  against  the  subsidy  of  Hanoverian  troops 
is  interesting  as  a  good  specimen  of  his  early  manner.  It  is 
vigorous,  spirited,  and  energetic,  less  oratorical  and  more  like 
debating  than  his  speeches  afterwards  became.  The  reputa- 
tion which  he  acquired  in  the  House  of  Commons,  though  slow 
in  rising  to  its  full  height,  was  brilliant  from  the  first.  Pitt 
/did  not  attempt  to  follow  closely  the  arguments  of  previous 
^^eakers.  He  aimed  rather  at  striking  out  sudden  sparks, 
/_  afld  at  the  adoption  of  memorable  phrases,  which  impressed 
JL  \m  hearers  at  once,  and  were  not  soon  forgotten.  Hanover 
of  course  was  an  obvious  and  tempting  theme,  because  it 
raised  the  whole  question  of  George  the  Second's  German 
engagements,  and  the  influence  they  exercised  upon  the  policy 
of  this  country  in  Europe.  Pitt  was  not  always  consistent, 
but  at  this  time  he  inveighed  against  Hanoverian  entangle- 
ments with  a  fine  flow  of  patriotic  fervour.  He  was  undoubt- 
edly sincere.  He  had  joined,  on  coming  into  Parliament, 
the  Whig  Opposition  to  Walpole,  which  was  founded  on 
jealousy  of  prerogative,  and  a  belief  that  the  Hanoverians  were 
no  more  to  be  trusted  than  the  Stuarts.  In  the  course  of  his 
long  supremacy  over  the  King  and  the  Cabinet  Walpole  had 
aroused  a  spirit  of  resistance  which,  though  it  may  have 
originated  in  personal  motives,  developed  into  a  definite  party, 
combining  the  profession  of  Whig  principles  with  the  practice 
of  antagonism  to  the  House  of  Hanover. 

Few  passages  of  Pitt's  oratory  are  better  known  than  his 
comparison  of  the  coalition  between  Fox  and  Newcastle  to  the 
junction  of  Rhone  and  the  Saone.  But,  famous  as  it  is  now, 
its  success  at  the  time  was  not  so  complete  as  that  which  some  of 
his  other  phrases  achieved.     Fox  afterwards  asked  Pitt  whether 


CHATHAM  43 

he  himself  were  the  Rhone  or  the  Saone,  and  received  the 
unexpected  answer,  "  You  are  Granville."  Lord  Granville, 
better  known  as  Lord  Carteret,  was  a  member  of  the  Coalition 
Government.  But  he  was  not  included  in  the  simile,  and  Fox 
was,  of  course,  the  Rhone.  Between  him  and  Pitt  there  had 
been  fierce  and  eager  rivalry.  Henry  Fox,  the  first  Lord 
Holland,  father  of  Charles  James,  was  devoid  of  political 
principle,  but  an  able  administrator,  and  a  consummately 
dexterous  debater,  who  possessed  just  the  Parliamentary 
qualities  that  Pitt  lacked.  The  Duke  of  Newcastle  had 
chosen  him  to  lead  the  House  of  Commons,  beheving  that 
he  was  the  only  man  who  could  stand  up  against  the  "  terrible 
comet  of  horse,"  as  Walpole  had  called  Pitt  long  before. 
Chatham's  fame  is  so  immeasurably  greater  than  Lord  Hol- 
land's that  we  find  it  difficult  to  realise  the  possibility  of  their 
having  been  regarded  as  competitors.  But  there  can  be 
no  doubt  of  the  fact.  Fox,  whatever  else  may  be  thought 
of  him,  had  the  faculties,  at  least  the  intellectual  faculties, 
which  enable  a  pohtician  to  hold  his  own  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons. If  he  had  had  Pitt's  character,  or  Pitt's  imagination, 
he  might  occupy  a  much  more  conspicuous  place  in  history. 

Reply  to  Horace   Walpole 
House  of  Commons.     1740 

The  atrocious  crime  of  being  a  young  man,  which  the  Honour- 
able Gentleman  has  with  such  spirit  and  decency  charged 
upon  me,  I  shall  neither  attempt  to  palliate  nor  deny,  but 
content  myself  with  wishing  that  I  may  be  one  of  those  whose 
follies  may  cease  with  their  youth,  and  not  of  that  number 
who  are  ignorant  in  spite  of  experience. 

Whether  youth  can  be  imputed  to  any  man  as  a  reproach, 
I  will  not  assume  the  province  of  determining  :  but  surely  age 
may  become  justly  contemptible,  if  the  opportunities,  which 
it  brings  have  passed  away  without  improvement  and  vice 
appears  to  prevail  when  the  passions  have  subsided.  The 
wretch  who,  after  having  seen  the  consequences  of  a  thousand 


44  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

errors  continues  still  to  blunder,  and  whose  age  has  only  added 
obstinacy  to  stupidity,  is  surely  the  object  of  abhorrence  or 
contempt,  and  deserves  not  that  his  grey  head  should  preserve 
him  from  insults. 

Much  more  is  he  to  be  abhorred,  who,  as  he  has  advanced  in 
age,  has  receded  from  virtue,  and  becomes  more  wicked  with 
less  temptation  ;  who  prostitutes  himself  for  money  he  cannot 
enjoy,  and  spends  the  remains  of  his  life  in  the  ruin  of  his  country. 

But  youth  is  not  my  only  crime  !  I  have  been  accused  ot 
acting  a  theatrical  part.  A  theatrical  part  may  either  imply 
some  peculiarities  of  gesture,  or  a  dissimulation  of  my  real 
sentiments,  and  the  adoption  of  the  opinions  and  language  of 
another  man. 

In  the  first  sense,  the  charge  is  too  trifling  to  be  confuted, 
and  deserves  only  to  be  mentioned,  that  it  may  be  despised  ; 
I  am  at  liberty,  like  every  other  man,  to  use  my  own  language  : 
and  though  I  may,  perhaps,  have  some  ambition,  yet,  to  please 
this  gentleman,  I  shall  not  lay  myself  under  any  restraint, 
nor  very  solicitously  copy  his  diction,  or  his  mien,  however 
matured  by  age,  or  modelled  by  experience.  If  any  man  shall, 
by  charging  me  with  theatrical  behaviour,  imply  that  I  utter 
any  sentiments  but  my  own,  I  shall  treat  him  as  a  calumniator 
and  a  villain  ;  nor  shall  any  protection  shelter  him  from  the 
treatment  which  he  deserves.  I  shall  on  such  an  occasion, 
without  scruple,  trample  upon  all  those  forms  with  which 
wealth  and  dignity  entrench  themselves,  nor  shall  anything  but 
age  restrain  my  resentment ;  age,  which  always  brings  one 
privilege,  that  of  being  insolent  and  supercilious  without 
punishment. 

But  with  regard  to  those  whom  I  have  offended,  I  am  of 
opinion,  that  if  I  had  acted  a  borrowed  part,  I  should  have 
avoided  their  censure  ;  the  heat  that  offended  them  is  the 
ardour  of  conviction  and  the  zeal  for  the  service  of  my  country, 
which  neither  hope  nor  fear  shall  influence  me  to  suppress. 
I  will  not  sit  unconcerned  while  my  liberty  is  invaded,  nor 
look  in  silence  upon  public  robbery.  I  will  exert  my 
endeavours,  at  whatever  hazard  to  repel  the  aggressor,  and 
drag  the  thief  to  justice,  whoever  may  protect  them  in  their 
villainy,  and  whoever  may  partake  of  their  plunder,  their 
posterity  will  for  ever  continue  in  office.  Sir,  this  doc- 
trine has  been  so  often  contradicted  by  experience,  that  I  am 


CHATHAM  45 

surprised  to  hear  it  advanced  by  gentlemen  now.  This  very 
session  has  afforded  us  a  convincing  proof  that  very  httle 
foundation  exists  for  asserting  that  a  parUamentary  enquiry 
must  necessarily  reveal  the  secrets  of  the  government.  Surely, 
in  a  war  with  Spain  which  must  necessarily  be  carried  on  princi- 
pally by  sea,  if  the  government  have  secrets,  the  Lords  of  the 
Admiralty  must  be  entrusted  with  the  most  important  of  them. 
Yet,  sir,  in  this  very  session  we  have  without  any  secret  com- 
mittees made  enquiry  into  the  conduct  of  the  Lords  Com- 
missioners of  the  Admiralty.  We  have  not  only  enquired  into 
their  conduct,  but  we  have  censured  it  in  such  manner  as  to 
put  an  end  to  the  trust  which  was  before  reposed  in  them. 
Has  that  enquiry  discovered  any  of  the  secrets  of  our  govern- 
ment ?  On  the  contrary,  the  committee  found  there  was  no 
occasion  to  probe  into  such  secrets.  They  found  cause  enough 
for  censure  without  it,  and  none  of  the  commissioners  pretended 
to  justify  their  conduct  by  the  assertion  that  papers  contained 
secrets  which  ought  not  to  be  disclosed. 

This,  Sir,  is  so  recent,  so  strong  a  proof  that  there  is  no  neces- 
sary connection  between  a  parliamentary  enquiry  and  a  dis- 
covery of  secrets  which  it  behoves  the  nation  to  conceal,  that  I 
trust  gentlemen  will  no  longer  insist  upon  this  danger  as  an 
argument  against  the  enquiry.  Sir,  the  First  Commissioner 
of  the  Treasury  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  apphcation  of  secret- 
service  money.  He  is  only  to  take  care  that  it  be  regularly 
issued  from  his  office  and  that  no  more  be  issued  than  the  con- 
juncture of  affairs  appears  to  demand.  As  to  the  particular 
application,  it  properly  belongs  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  or 
to  such  other  persons  as  his  Majesty  employs,  so  that  we  cannot 
suppose  the  proposed  enquiry  will  discover  any  secrets  relative 
to  the  application  of  that  money  unless  the  noble  Lord  has 
acted  as  Secretary  of  State,  as  well  as  First  Commissioner  of 
the  Treasury  ;  or  unless  a  great  part  of  the  money  drawn  out 
for  secret  service  has  been  delivered  to  himself  or  persons 
employed  by  him,  and  applied  towards  getting  a  corrupt 
influence  in  Parliament  or  at  elections.  Of  both  these  prac- 
tices he  is  most  grievously  suspected,  and  both  are  secrets 
which  it  very  much  behoves  him  to  conceal.  But,  Sir,  it  equally 
behoves  the  nation  to  discover  them.  His  country  and  he  are, 
in  this  cause,  equally,  though  oppositely,  concerned  ;  for  the 
safety  or  ruin  of  one  or  the  other  depends  upon  the  fate  of  the 


46  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

question,  and  the  violent  opposition,  which  this  question  has 
experienced  adds  great  strength  to  the  suspicion. 

I  admit,  Sir,  that  the  noble  Lord,  whose  conduct  is  now 
proposed  to  be  enquired  into,  was  one  of  His  Majesty's  most 
honourable  Privy  Council,  and  consequently  he  must  have  had 
a  share  at  least  in  advising  all  the  measures  which  have  been 
pursued  both  abroad  and  at  home.  But  I  cannot  from  this 
admit,  that  an  inquiry  into  his  conduct  must  necessarily 
occasion  a  discovery  of  any  secrets  of  vital  importance  to 
the  nation,  because  we  are  not  to  enquire  into  the  measures 
themselves. 

But,  Sir,  suspicions  have  gone  abroad  relative  to  his  conduct 
as  a  Privy  Councillor  which,  if  true,  are  of  the  utmost  conse- 
quence to  be  enquired  into.  It  has  been  strongly  asserted  that 
he  was  not  only  Privy  Councillor,  but  that  he  usurped  the  whole 
and  sole  director  of  his  Majesty's  Privy  Council.  It  has  been 
asserted  that  he  gave  the  Spanish  Court  the  first  hint  of  the 
unjust  claim  they  afterwards  advanced  against  our  South  Sea 
Company,  which  was  one  chief  cause  of  the  war  between  the 
two  nations.  And  it  has  been  asserted,  that  this  very  minister 
has  advised  the  French  in  what  manner  to  proceed  in  order  to 
bring  our  Court  into  their  measures  ;  particularly  that  he 
advised  them  as  to  the  numerous  army  they  have  this  last 
summer  sent  into  Westphalia.  What  truth  there  is  in  these 
assertions  I  pretend  not  to  decide.  The  facts  are  of  such  a 
nature,  and  they  must  have  been  perpetrated  with  so  much 
caution  and  secrecy,  that  it  will  be  difficult  to  bring  them  to 
light  even  by  a  parliamentary  enquiry  ;  but  the  very  suspicion 
is  ground  enough  for  establishing  such  enquiry,  and  for  carrying 
it  on  with  the  utmost  strictness  and  vigour. 

Whatever  my  opinion  of  past  measures  may  be,  I  shall 
never  be  so  vain,  or  bigoted  to  that  opinion,  as  to  determine, 
without  any  enquiry,  against  the  majority  of  my  countrymen. 
If  I  found  the  public  measures  generally  condemned,  let  my 
private  opinions  of  them  be  ever  so  favourable,  I  should  be  for 
enquiry  in  order  to  convince  the  people  of  their  error,  or  at 
least  to  furnish  myself  with  the  most  authentic  arguments 
in  favour  of  the  opinion  I  had  embraced.  The  desire  of 
bringing  others  into  the  same  sentiments  with  ourselves  is  so 
natural,  that  I  shall  always  suspect  the  candour  of  those  who  in 
politics  and  religion  are  opposed  to  free  enquiry.     Besides,  Sir, 


CHATHAM  47 

when  the  complaints  of  the  people  are  general  against  an 
administration,  or  against  any  particular  minister,  an  enquiry 
is  a  duty  which  we  owe  both  to  our  Sovereign  and  the  people. 
We  meet  here  to  communicate  to  our  Sovereign  the  sentiments 
of  his  people.  We  meet  here  to  redress  the  grievances  of  the 
people.  By  performing  our  duty  in  both  respects,  we  shall 
always  be  enabled  to  establish  the  throne  of  our  Sovereign 
in  the  hearts  of  his  people,  and  to  hinder  the  people  from  being 
led  into  insurrection  and  rebellion  by  misrepresentations  or 
false  surmises.  When  the  people  cpmplain  they  must  either 
be  right  or  in  error.  If  they  be  right,  we  are  in  duty  bound 
to  enquire  into  the  conduct  of  the  ministers,  and  to  punish 
those  who  appear  to  have  been  most  guilty.  If  they  be  in 
error,  we  ought  still  to  enquire  into  the  conduct  of  our  Ministers 
in  order  to  convince  the  people  that  they  have  been  misled. 
We  ought  not,  therefore,  in  any  question  relating  to  enquiry, 
to  be  governed  by  our  own  sentiments.  We  must  be  governed 
by  the  sentiments  of  our  constituents,  if  we  are  resolved  to 
perform  our  duty  both  as  true  representatives  of  the  people 
or  as  faithful  subjects  of  our  King. 

I  perfectly  agree  with  the  honourable  gentleman  that  if  we 
are  convinced  that  the  public  measures  are  wrong,  or  that  if 
we  suspect  them  to  be  so,  we  ought  to  make  enquiry  although 
there  is  not  much  complaint  among  the  people  ;  but  I  wholly 
differ  from  him  in  thinking  that,  notwithstanding  the  adminis- 
tration and  the  minister  are  the  subjects  of  complaint  among 
the  people,  we  ought  not  to  make  enquiry  into  his  conduct 
unless  we  are  ourselves  convinced  that  his  measures  have  been 
wrong.  Sir,  we  can  no  more  determine  this  question  without 
enquiry  than  a  judge  without  a  trial  can  declare  any  man 
innocent  of  a  crime  laid  to  his  charge.  Common  fame  is  a 
sufficient  ground  for  an  inquisition  at  common  law,  and 
for  the  same  reason,  the  general  voice  of  the  people  of 
England  ought  always  to  be  regarded  as  a  sufficient  ground 
for  a  parliamentary  enquiry. 

But,  say  gentlemen,  of  what  is  this  minister  accused  ? 
What  crime  is  laid  to  his  charge  ?  For,  unless  some  misfortune 
is  said  to  have  happened,  or  some  crime  to  have  been  conunitted 
no  enquiry  ought  to  be  set  on  foot.  Sir,  the  ill  posture  of  our 
affairs  both  abroad  and  at  home  ;  the  melancholy  situation 
we  are  in  ;    the  distresses  to  which  we  are  now  reduced,  are 


48  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

sufficient  causes  for  an  enquiry  even  supposing  the  minister 
accused  of  no  particular  crime  or  misconduct.  The  nation 
lies  bleeding,  perhaps  expiring.  The  balance  of  power  has 
been  fatally  disturbed.  Shall  we  acknowledge  this  to  be  the 
case,  and  shall  we  not  enquire  whether  it  has  happened  by 
mischance,  or  by  the  misconduct,  perhaps  by  the  malice 
prepense,  of  the  minister  ?  Before  the  Treaty  of  Utrecht  it 
was  the  general  opinion  that  in  a  few  years  of  peace  we 
should  be  able  to  pay  off  most  of  our  debts.  We  have  now 
been  very  nearly  thirty  years  in  profound  peace,  at  least  we 
have  never  been  engaged  in  any  war  but  what  we  unneces- 
sarily brought  upon  ourselves,  and  yet  our  debts  are  almost 
as  great  as  they  were  when  that  Treaty  was  concluded.  Is 
not  this  a  misfortune,  and  shall  not  we  make  enquiry  into 
its  cause  ? 

I  am  surprised  to  hear  it  said  that  no  enquiry  ought  to  be 
set  on  foot,  unless  it  is  known  that  some  public  crime  has  been 
committed.  Sir,  the  suspicion  that  a  crime  has  been  com- 
mitted has  always  been  deemed  a  sufficient  reason  for  institu- 
ting an  enquiry.  And  is  there  not  now  a  suspicion  that  the 
pubhc  money  has  been  apphed  towards  gaining  a  corrupt 
influence  at  elections  ?  Is  it  not  become  a  common  expression  : 
"  The  flood  gates  of  the  Treasury  are  opened  against  a  general 
election  "  ?  I  desire  no  more  than  that  every  gentleman 
who  is  conscious  that  such  practices  have  been  resorted  to, 
either  for  or  against  him,  should  give  his  vote  in  favour  of  the 
motion.  Will  any  gentleman  say  that  this  is  no  crime  when 
every  private  corruption  has  such  high  penalties,  inflicted  by 
express  statute  against  it  ?  Sir,  a  minister  who  commits  this 
crime — who  thus  abuses  the  pubhc  money,  adds  breach  of  trust 
to  the  crime  of  corruption  ;  and  as  the  crime,  when  committed 
by  him,  is  of  much  more  dangerous  consequence  than  when 
committed  by  a  private  man,  it  becomes  more  properly  the 
object  of  a  parliamentary  enquiry,  and  merits  the  severest 
punishment.  The  honourable  gentleman  may  with  much 
more  reason  teU  us  that  Porteous  was  never  murdered  by  the 
mob  at  Edinburgh,  because,  notwithstanding  the  high  reward 
as  weU  as  pardon  proffered,  his  murderers  were  never  dis- 
covered, than  tell  us  that  we  cannot  suppose  our  minister, 
either  personally  or  by  others,  has  ever  corrupted  an  election, 
because  no  information  has  been  brought  against  him  ;     Sir, 


CHATHAM  49 

nothing  but  a  pardon,  upon  the  conviction  of  the  offender, 
has  ever  yet  been  offered  in  this  case  :  and  how  could  any 
informer  expect  a  pardon,  and  much  less  a  reward,  when  he 
knew  that  the  very  man  against  whom  he  was  to  inform,  had 
not  only  the  distribution  of  all  public  rewards,  but  the  packing 
of  a  jury  or  parliament  against  him  ?  Whilst  such  a  minister 
preserves  the  favour  of  the  Crown,  and  thereby  the  exercise 
of  its  power,  this  information  can  never  be  expected. 

This  shows.  Sir,  the  impotence  of  the  act,  mentioned  by  the 
honourable  gentleman,  respecting  that  sort  of  corruption 
which  is  called  bribery.  With  regard  to  the  other  sort  of 
corruption,  which  consists  in  giving  or  taking  away  those  posts, 
pensions,  or  preferments,  which  depend  upon  the  arbitrary  will 
of  the  Crown,  the  act  is  still  more  inefficient.  Although  it 
would  be  considered  most  indecent  in  a  minister  to  tell  any 
man  that  he  gave  or  withheld  a  post,  pension,  or  preferment,  on 
account  of  his  voting  for  or  against  any  ministerial  measure 
in  Parliament,  or  any  ministerial  candidate  at  an  election  ; 
yet,  if  he  makes  it  his  constant  rule  never  to  give  a  post, 
pension,  or  preferment,  but  to  those  who  vote  for  his  measures 
and  his  candidates  ;  if  he  makes  a  few  examples  of  dismissing 
those  who  vote  otherwise,  it  will  have  the  same  effect  as  when 
he  openly  declares  it.  Will  any  gentleman  say  that  this  has 
not  been  the  practice  of  the  minister  ?  Has  he  not  declared, 
in  the  face  of  this  House,  that  he  will  continue  the  practice  ? 
And  will  not  this  have  the  same  effect  as  if  he  went  separately 
to  every  particular  man,  and  told  him  in  express  terms,  "  Sir, 
if  you  vote  for  such  a  measure  or  such  a  candidate  you  shall 
have  the  first  preferment  in  the  gift  of  the  Crown  :  if  you  vote 
otherwise,  you  must  not  expect  to  keep  what  you  have  ? 
Gentlemen  may  deny  that  the  sun  shines  at  noon-day  ;  but 
if  they  have  eyes,  and  do  not  wilfully  shut  them,  or  turn  their 
backs,  no  man  wdll  believe  them  to  be  ingenuous  in  what  they 
say.  I  think,  therefore,  that  the  honourable  gentleman  was 
in  the  right  who  endeavoured  to  justify  the  practice.  It  was 
more  candid  than  to  deny  it — but  as  his  arguments  have  already 
been  fully  answered,  I  shall  not  farther  discuss  them. 

Gentlemen  exclaim,  "  What  !  will  you  take  from  the  Crown 
the  power  of  preferring  or  cashiering  the  officers  of  the  army  ?  " 
No,  Sir,  this  is  neither  the  design  nor  will  it  be  the  effect,  of 
our  agreeing  to  the  motion.     The  King  at  present  possesses 

4— (2170) 


50  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

the  absolute  power  to  prefer  or  cashier  the  officers  of  our  army. 
It  is  a  preroga  tive  which  he  may  employ  for  the  benefit  or  safety 
of  the  public  ;  but  like  other  prerogatives,  it  may  be  abused, 
and  when  it  is  so  abused,  the  minister  is  responsible  to  Parlia- 
ment. When  an  officer  is  preferred  or  cashiered  for  voting  in 
favour  of,  or  against  any  Court  measure,  or  candidate,  it  is  an 
abuse  of  this  prerogative,  for  which  the  minister  is  answerable. 
We  may  judge  from  circumstances  or  outward  appearances — 
from  these  we  may  condemn,  and  I  hope  we  have  still  a  power 
to  punish  a  minister  who  dares  to  advise  the  King  to  prefer 
or  cashier  from  such  motives  !  Sir,  whether  this  prerogative 
ought  to  remain  as  it  is,  without  any  limitation,  is  a  question 
foreign  to  this  debate  ;  but  I  must  observe  that  the  argument 
employed  for  it  might,  with  equal  justice,  be  employed  for 
giving  our  King  an  absolute  power  over  every  man's  property 
— because  a  large  property  will  always  give  the  possessor  a 
command  over  a  great  body  of  men,  whom  he  may  arm  and 
discipline  if  he  pleases.  I  know  of  no  law  to  restrain  him.  I 
hope  none  will  ever  exist — I  wish  our  gentlemen  of  estates  would 
make  more  use  of  this  power  than  they  do,  because  it  would 
tend  to  keep  our  domestic  as  well  as  our  foreign  enemies  in 
awe.  For  my  part  I  think  a  gentleman  who  has  earned  his 
commission  by  his  services  (in  his  military  capacity,  I  mean) 
or  bought  it  with  his  money  has  as  much  a  property  in  it  as 
any  man  has  in  his  estate  and  ought  to  have  it  well  secured 
by  the  laws  of  his  country.  Whilst  it  remains  at  the  absolute 
will  of  the  Crown,  he  must,  unless  he  has  some  other  estate 
to  depend  on,  be  a  slave  to  the  minister  ;  and  if  the  officers  of 
our  army  long  continue  in  that  state  of  slavery  in  which  they 
are  at  present,  I  am  afraid  it  will  make  slaves  of  us  all. 

The  only  method  to  prevent  this  fatal  consequence,  as  the 
law  now  stands,  is  to  make  the  best  and  most  constant  use  of 
the  power  we  possess  as  Members  of  this  House,  to  prevent  any 
minister  from  daring  to  advise  the  King  to  make  a  bad  use  of 
his  prerogative  ;  as  there  is  such  a  strong  suspicion  that  this 
minister  has  done  so,  we  ought  certainly  to  enquire  into  it, 
**  not  only  for  the  sake  of  punishing  him,  if  guilty,  but  as  a 
terror  to  all  future  ministers." 

This,  Sir,  may  therefore  be  justly  reckoned  among  the  many 
other  sufficient  causes  for  the  enquiry  proposed.  The  suspicion 
that  the  civil  list  is  greatly  in  debt  is  another  ;  for  if  it  is,  it 


CHATHAM  51 

must  either  have  been  misapphed  or  profusely  thrown  away, 
which  abuse  it  is  both  our  duty  to  prevent  and  to  punish.  It 
is  inconsistent  with  the  honour  of  this  nation  that  the  King 
should  stand  indebted  to  his  servants  or  tradesmen,  who  may 
be  ruined  by  delay  of  payment.  The  Parliament  has  provided 
sufficiently  to  prevent  this  dishonour  from  being  brought  upon 
the  nation,  and,  if  the  provision  we  have  made  should  be 
lavished  or  misapphed,  we  must  supply  the  deficiency  ;  we 
ought  to  do  it  whether  the  King  makes  any  apphcation  for 
that  purpose  or  not ;  and  the  reason  is  plain,  because  we  ought 
first  to  enquire  into  the  management  of  that  revenue,  and 
punish  those  who  have  occasioned  the  deficiency.  They  will 
certainly  choose  to  leave  the  creditors  of  the  Crown  and  the 
honour  of  the  nation  in  a  state  of  suffering  rather  than  advise 
the  King  to  make  an  application  which  may  bring  censure 
upon  their  conduct,  and  condign  punishment  upon  themselves. 
Besides  this.  Sir,  another  and  a  stronger  reason  exists  for 
promoting  an  enquiry.  There  is  a  strong  suspicion  that  the 
public  money  has  been  applied  towards  corrupting  voters  at 
elections,  and  members  when  elected  ;  and  if  the  civil  list 
be  in  debt,  it  affords  reason  to  presume  that  some  part  of  this 
revenue  has,  under  the  pretence  of  secret-service  money,  been 
applied  to  this  infamous  purpose. 

I  shall  conclude.  Sir,  by  making  a  few  remarks  upon  the 
last  argument  used  against  the  proposed  enquiry.  It  has 
been  said  that  the  minister  dehvered  in  his  accounts  annually  ; 
that  these  accounts  have  been  usually  passed  and  approved  by 
Parhament  ;  and  that  therefore  it  would  be  unjust  to  call  him 
now  to  a  general  account,  because  the  vouchers  may  be  lost, 
or  many  expensive  transactions  have  escaped  his  memory. 
It  is  true,  Sir,  estimates  and  accounts  have  been  annually 
dehvered  in.  The  forms  of  proceeding  made  that  necessary, 
but  were  any  of  these  estimates  and  accounts  properly  enquired 
into  ?  Were  not  all  questions  of  that  description  rejected  by 
the  minister's  friends  in  Parhament  ?  Have  not  Parliament 
always  taken  them  upon  trust,  and  passed  them  without 
examination  ?  Can  such  a  superficial  passing,  to  call  it  no 
worse,  be  deemed  a  reason  for  not  calling  him  to  a  new  and 
general  account  ?  If  the  steward  to  an  infant's  estate  should 
annually,  for  twenty  years  together,  dehver  in  his  accounts 
to  the  guardians  ;    and  the  guardians  through  negligence  or 


52  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

for  a  share  of  the  plunder,  should  annually  pass  his  accounts 
without  examination,  or  at  least  without  objection  ;  would 
that  be  a  reason  for  saying  that  it  would  be  unjust  to  the 
infant,  when  he  came  of  age,  to  call  his  steward  to  account  ? 
Especially  if  that  steward  had  built  and  furnished  sumptuous 
palaces,  living  during  the  whole  time,  at  a  much  greater 
expense  than  his  visible  income  warranted  and  yet  amassing 
great  riches  ?  The  public,  Sir,  is  always  in  a  state  of  infancy  ; 
therefore  no  prescription  can  be  pleaded  against  it — not  even 
a  general  release,  if  there  is  the  least  cause  for  supposing  that  it 
was  surreptitiously  obtained.  Public  vouchers  ought  always, 
to  remain  on  record  ;  nor  ought  any  public  expense  to  be 
incurred  without  a  voucher.  Therefore  the  case  of  the  public 
is  still  stronger  than  that  of  an  infant.  Thus,  Sir,  the  honour- 
able gentleman  who  made  use  of  this  objection  must  see  how 
little  it  avails  in  the  case  before  us  ;  and  therefore  I  trust  we 
shall  have  his  concurrence  in  the  question. 

Speech  in  Support  of  Lord  Limerick's  Second  Motion.     1742  ^ 

As  the  honourable  gentleman  who  spoke  last  against  the 
motion  has  not  been  long  in  the  House,  it  is  but  charitable  to 
believe  him  sincere  in  professing  that  he  is  ready  to  agree  to 
a  Parliamentary  enquiry  when  he  thinks  the  occasion  requires 
it.  But  if  he  knew  how  often  such  professions  are  made  by 
those  who,  upon  all  occasions,  oppose  enquiry,  he  would  now 
avoid  them  because  they  are  generally  believed  to  be  insincere. 
He  may,  it  is  true,  have  nothing  to  dread  on  his  own  account 
from  enquiry,  but  when  a  gentleman  has  contracted,  or  any 
of  his  near  relations  have  contracted,  a  friendship  with  one  who 
may  be  brought  into  danger,  it  is  very  natural  to  suppose  that 
such  a  gentleman's  opposition  to  an  enquiry  does  not  entirely 
proceed  from  public  motives  ;  and  if  that  gentleman  follows 
the  advice  of  some  of  his  friends  I  very  much  question  whether 
he  will  ever  think  the  occasion  requires  an  enquiry  into  the 
conduct  of  our  public  affairs. 

As  a  Parliamentary  enquiry  must  always  be  founded  on 
suspicions,  as  well  as  upon  facts  or  manifest  crimes,  reasons 
may  always  be  found  for  alleging  those  suspicions  to  be  without 

1  This  speech  was  made  in  favour  of  inquiring  into  the  alleged 
corruption  of  Wal pole's  Government. 


CHATHAM  53 

foundation  ;  and  upon  the  principle  a  Pariiamentary  enquiry 
must  necessarily  lay  open  the  secrets  of  government,  no  time 
can  ever  be  proper  or  convenient  for  such  enquiry,  because  it 
is  impossible  to  suppose  a  time  when  the  government  has  no 
secrets  to  disclose.  This,  Sir,  would  be  a  most  convenient 
doctrine  for  ministers,  because  it  would  put  an  end  to  all 
Parliamentary  enquiries  into  the  conduct  of  our  public  affairs  ; 
and  therefore  when  I  hear  it  urged,  and  so  much  insisted  on 
by  a  certain  set  of  gentlemen  in  this  House,  I  must  suppose 
their  hopes  to  be  very  extensive.  I  must  suppose  them  to 
expect  that  they  are. 

Speech  on  Sir  W.  Yonge's  Motion  Respecting  the  Hanoverian 
Troops.      1742 1 

If  the  honourable  gentleman  determines  to  abandon  his 
present  sentiments  as  soon  as  any  better  measures  are  proposed, 
the  ministry  will  quickly  be  deprived  of  one  of  their  ablest 
defenders  :  for  I  consider  the  measures  hitherto  pursued  so 
weak  and  so  pernicious,  that  scarcely  any  alteration  can  be 
proposed  that  will  not  be  for  the  advantage  of  the  nation.  The 
honourable  gentleman  has  already  been  informed  that  no 
necessity  existed  for  hiring  auxiliary  troops.  It  does  not  appear 
that  either  justice  or  policy  required  us  to  engage  in  the  quarrel 
of  the  continent  :  that  there  was  any  need  of  forming  an  army 
in  the  low  countries ;  or  that  in  order  to  form  an  army 
auxiliaries   were   necessary. 

But,  not  to  dwell  upon  disputable  points,  I  think  it  may 
justly  be  concluded  that  the  measures  of  our  ministry  have  been 
ill  concerted  because  it  is  undoubtedly  wrong  to  squander  the 
public  money  without  effect  :  to  pay  armies,  only  to  be  a  show 
to  our  friends  and  a  scorn  to  our  enemies. 

The  troops  of  Hanover,  whom  we  are  now  expected  to  pay, 
marched  into  the  low  countries.  Sir,  where  they  stiU  remain. 
They  marched  to  the  place  most  distant  from  the  enemy,  least 
in  danger  of  an  attack,  and  most  strongly  fortified,  had  an 
attack  been  designed.  They  have,  therefore,  no  other  claim 
to  be  paid,  than  that  they  left  their  own  country  for  a  place 
of  greater  security.     It  is  always  reasonable  to  judge  of  the 

1  This  speech  was  directed  against  the  employment  of  Hanoverian 
troops  by  Great  Britain. 


54  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

future  by  the  past,  and  therefore  it  is  probable  that  next  year 
the  services  of  these  troops  will  not  be  of  equal  importance 
with  those  for  which  they  are  now  to  be  paid.  I  shall  not, 
therefore,  be  surprised,  if,  after  such  another  glorious  cam- 
paign, the  opponents  of  the  ministry  be  challenged  to  propose 
better  men  and  be  told  that  the  money  of  this  nation  cannot 
be  more  properly  employed  than  in  hiring  Hanoverians  to  eat 
and  sleep. 

But  to  prove  yet  more  particularly  that  better  measures 
may  be  taken  ;  that  more  useful  troops  may  be  retained  ;  and 
that,  therefore,  the  honourable  gentleman  may  be  expected 
to  quit  those  to  whom  he  now  adheres  ;  I  shall  show  that  in 
hiring  the  forces  of  Hanover,  we  have  obstructed  our  own 
designs  ;  that  instead  of  assisting  the  Queen  of  Hungary,  we 
have  withdrawn  from  her  a  part  of  the  allies,  and  have  bur- 
thened  the  nation  with  troops  from  which  no  service  can 
reasonably  be  expected. 

The  advocates  of  the  Ministry  have,  on  this  occasion,  affected 
to  speak  of  the  balance  of  power,  the  Pragmatic  Sanction,  and 
the  preservation  of  the  Queen  of  Hungary,  not  only  as  if  they 
were  to  be  the  chief  care  of  Great  Britain  which  (although 
easily  controvertible)  might,  in  compliance  with  long  prejudices 
be  possibly  admitted  ;  but  as  if  they  were  the  care  of  Great 
Britain  alone.  These  advocates.  Sir,  have  spoken  as  if  the 
power  of  France  were  formidable  to  no  other  people  than  our- 
selves ;  as  if  no  other  part  of  the  world  would  be  injured  by 
becoming  a  prey  to  an  universal  monarchy,  and  subject  to  the 
arbitrary  government  of  a  French,  by  being  drained  of  its 
inhabitants  only  to  extend  the  conquests  of  its  masters,  and  to 
make  other  nations  equally  wretched  ;  and  by  being  oppressed 
with  exorbitant  taxes,  levied  by  military  executions  and 
employed  only  in  supporting  the  state  of  its  oppressors.  They 
dwell  upon  the  importance  of  public  faith,  and  the  necessity 
of  an  exact  observation  of  treaties,  as  if  the  Pragmatic  sanction 
had  been  signed  by  no  other  potentate  than  the  King  of  Great 
Britain  ;  as  if  the  Public  Faith  were  to  be  obligatory  upon 
ourselves  alone. 

That  we  should  inviolably  observe  our  Treaties — observe 
them  although  every  other  nation  should  disregard  them  ; 
that  we  should  show  an  example  of  fidelity  to  mankind  and 
stand  firm  in  the  practice  of  virtue,  though  we  should  stand 


CHATHAM  55 

alone,  I  readily  allow.  I  am,  therefore,  far  from  advising 
that  we  should  recede  from  our  stipulations  whatever  we  may 
suffer  in  the  fulfilment ;  or  that  we  should  neglect  the  support 
of  the  Pragmatic  Sanction,  however  we  may  be  at  present 
embarrassed,  or  however  disadvantageous  may  be  its  assertion. 

But  surely.  Sir,  for  the  same  reason  that  we  observe  our 
stipulations,  we  ought  to  excite  other  powers  also  to  observe 
their  own  ;  at  the  least.  Sir,  we  ought  not  to  assist  in  preventing 
them  from  doing  so.  But  how  is  our  present  conduct  agreeable 
to  these  principles  ?  The  Pragmatic  Sanction  was  guaranteed 
not  only  by  the  King  of  Great  Britain,  but  by  the  Elector  of 
Hanover  adso,  who  (if  treaties  constitute  obhgation)  is  thereby 
equally  obliged  to  defend  the  House  of  Austria  against  the 
attacks  of  any  foreign  power,  and  to  send  his  proportion  of 
troops  for  the  Queen  of  Hungary's  support. 

Whether  these  troops  have  been  sent,  those  whose  province 
obliges  them  to  possess  some  knowledge  of  foreign  affairs,  are 
better  able  to  inform  the  House  than  myself  ;  but  since  we 
have  not  heard  them  mentioned  in  this  debate,  and  since  we 
know  by  experience  that  none  of  the  merits  of  that  electorate 
are  passed  over  in  silence,  it  may,  I  think,  be  concluded  that 
the  distresses  of  the  Queen  of  Hungary  have  yet  received  no 
alleviation  from  her  alliance  with  Hanover  ;  that  her  com- 
plaints have  excited  no  compassion  at  that  court  and  that  the 
justice  of  her  cause  has  obtained  no  attention. 

To  what  can  be  attributed  this  negligence  of  Treaties, 
this  disregard  of  justice,  this  defect  of  compassion, 
but  to  the  pernicious  counsels  of  those  who  have  advised 
Her  Majesty  to  hire  and  to  send  elsewhere  those  troops 
which  should  have  been  employed  for  the  Queen  of  Hungary's 
assistance  ?  It  is  not  to  be  imagined,  Sir,  that  his  Majesty  has 
more  or  less  regard  to  justice  as  King  of  Great  Britain  than  as 
Elector  of  Hanover,  or  that  he  would  not  have  sent  his  pro- 
portion of  troops  to  the  Austrian  Army,  had  not  the  tempta- 
tion of  greater  profit  been  laid  industriously  before  him.  But 
this  is  not  all  that  may  be  urged  against  such  conduct.  For, 
can  we  imagine  that  the  power,  that  the  designs  of  France, 
are  less  formidable  to  Hanover  than  Great  Britain  ?  Is  it 
less  necessary  for  the  security  of  Hanover  than  of  ourselves 
that  the  House  of  Austria  should  be  re-estabhshed  in  its  former 
splendour  and  influence,  and  able  to  support  the  liberties  of 


56  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

Europe  against  the  enormous  attempts  at  universal  monarchy 
by  France  ? 

If,  therefore,  our  assistance  be  an  act  of  honesty,  and  granted 
in  consequence  of  Treaties,  why  may  it  not  equally  be  required 
of  Hanover  ?  If  it  be  an  act  of  generosity,  why  should  this 
nation  alone  be  obliged  to  sacrifice  her  own  interests  for  those 
of  others  ?  or  why  should  the  Elector  of  Hanover  exert  his 
hberality  at  the  expense  of  Great  Britain  alone  ? 

It  is  now  too  apparent.  Sir,  that  this  powerful,  this  great, 
this  mighty  nation,  is  considered  only  a  province  to  a  despic- 
able Electorate,  and,  that  in  consequence  of  a  plan  formed 
long  ago,  and  invariably  pursued,  these  troops  are  here  only  to 
drain  us  of  our  money.  That  they  have  hitherto  been  of  no 
use  to  Great  Britain  or  to  Austria,  is  evident  beyond  a  dcfubt ; 
and  therefore  it  is  plain  that  they  are  retained  only  for  the 
purposes  of  Hanover. 

How  much  reason  the  transactions  of  almost  every  year 
have  given  for  suspecting  this  absurd,  ungrateful  and  perfidious 
partiality  it  is  not  necessary  to  declare.  I  doubt  not  that 
most  of  those  who  sit  in  this  House  can  recollect  a  great  number 
of  instances  in  point,  from  the  purchase  of  part  of  the  Swedish 
dominions,  to  the  contract  which  we  are  now  called  upon  to 
ratify.  Few,  I  think,  can  have  forgotten  the  memorable 
stipulation  for  the  Hessian  troops  :  for  the  forces  of  the  Duke 
of  Wolfenbutch  which  were  scarcely  to  march  beyond  the 
verge  of  their  own  country  ;  or  the  ever  memorable  treaty, 
the  tendency  of  which  is  discovered  in  the  name.  A  treaty  by 
which  we  disunited  ourselves  from  Austria,  destroyed  that 
building  which  we  now  endeavour,  perhaps  in  vain,  to  raise 
again  ;  and  weaken  the  only  power  to  which  it  was  our  interest 
to  give  strength. 

To  dwell  upon  all  the  instances  of  partiality  which  have  been 
shewn,  and  the  yearly  visits  which  have  been  paid  to  that 
delightful  country ;  to  reckon  up  all  the  sums  that  have 
been  spent  to  aggrandise  and  enrich  it,  would  be 
an  irksome  and  invidious  task — invidious  to  those 
who  are  afraid  to  be  told  the  truth,  and  irksome  to 
those  who  are  unwilling  to  hear  of  the  dishonour  and 
injuries  of  their  country.  I  shall  dwell  no  longer  on  this 
unpleasing  subject  than  to  express  my  hope  that  we  shall  no 
longer  suffer  ourselves  to  be  deceived  or  oppressed  ;    that  we 


CHATHAM  57 

shall  at  length  perform  our  duty  as  representatives  of  the 
people  ;  and  by  refusing  to  ratify  this  contract,  show,  that 
however  the  interests  of  Hanover  have  been  preferred  by  the 
ministers,  the  Parliament  pays  no  regard  but  to  the  interests 
of  Great  Britain. 

On  the  Right  to  Tax  America  ^ 

I  CAME  to  town  but  to-day,  I  was  a  stranger  to  the  tenor  of 
his  Majesty's  speech  and  the  proposed  address,  till  I  heard  them 
read  in  this  House.  Unconnected  and  unconsulted,  I  have 
not  the  means  of  information  ;  I  am  fearful  of  offending 
through  mistake,  and  therefore  beg  to  be  indulged  with  a 
second  reading  of  the  proposed  address.  The  address  being 
read,  Mr.  Pitt  went  on.  He  commended  the  King's  speech, 
approved  of  the  address  in  answer,  as  it  decided  nothing, 
every  gentleman  being  left  at  perfect  liberty  to  take  such  a 
part  concerning  America  as  he  might  afterwards  see  fit.  One 
word  only  he  could  not  approve  of,  an  early  is  a  word  that 
does  not  belong  to  the  notice  the  ministry  have  given  to 
Parliament  of  the  troubles  in  America.  In  a  matter  of  such 
importance,  the  communication  ought  to  have  been  immediate  ; 
I  speak  not  with  respect  of  parties  ;  I  stand  up  in  this  place 
single  and  unconnected.  As  to  the  late  ministry  (turning 
himself  to  Mr.  Grenville,  who  sat  within  one  of  him),  every 
capital  measure  they  have  taken  has  been  entirely  wrong  ! 

As  to  the  present  gentlemen,  to  those  at  least  whom  I  have 
in  my  eye  (looking  at  the  bench  where  Mr.  Conway  sat  with 
the  Lords  of  the  Treasury),  I  have  no  objection  ;  I  have  never 
been  made  a  sacrifice  by  any  of  them.  Their  characters  are 
fair  ;  and  I  am  always  glad  when  men  of  fair  character  engage 
in  his  Majesty's  service.  Some  of  them  have  done  me  the  honour 
to  ask  my  opinion  before  they  would  engage.  These  will  do 
me  the  justice  to  own,  I  advised  them  to  engage,  but  notwith- 
standing— I  love  to  be  expHcit — I  cannot  give  them  my 
confidence  ;  pardon  me,  gentlemen  (bowing  to  the  Ministry), 
confidence  is  a  plant  of  slow  growth  in  an  aged  bosom,  youth 
is  the  season  of  credulity  ;    by  comparing  events  with  each 

1  Pitt  held  that  Parliament  had  not  even  a  legal  right  to  tax  the 
American  Colonies.  In  this  respect  he  differed  from  Burke,  as  well 
as  from  Grenville. 


58  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

other,  reasoning  from  effects  to  causes,  methinks  I  plainly 
discover  the  traces  of  an  over-ruling  influence. 

There  is  a  clause  in  the  act  of  settlement  to  obhge  every 
minister  to  sign  his  name  to  the  advice  which  he  gives  his 
Sovereign.  Would  it  were  observed  ! — I  have  had  the  honour 
to  serve  the  Crown,  and  if  I  could  have  submitted  to  influence 
I  might  have  still  continued  to  serve ;  but  I  would  not  have  been 
responsible  for  others. — I  have  no  local  attachments  ;  it  is 
indifferent  to  me  whether  a  man  is  rocked  in  his  cradle  on  this 
side  or  that  side  of  the  Tweed,  I  sought  for  merit  wherever  it 
was  to  be  found.  It  is  my  boast  that  I  was  the  first  minister 
who  looked  for  it,  and  I  found  it  in  the  mountains  of  the 
North.  I  called  it  forth,  and  drew  it  into  yotjr  service,  a  hardy 
and  intrepid  race  of  men  !  Men,  who,  when  left  by  your 
jealousy  became  a  prey  to  the  artifices  of  your  enemies,  and 
had  gone  nigh  to  have  overturned  the  State  in  the  war  before 
the  last.  These  men  in  the  last  war  were  brought  to  combat 
on  your  side  ;  they  served  with  fidelity,  as  they  fought  with 
valour,  and  conquered  for  you  in  every  part  of  the  world  ; 
detested  be  the  national  reflections  against  them  !  they  are 
unjust,  groundless,  illiberal,  unmanly. — ^When  I  ceased  to 
serve  his  Majesty  as  a  minister,  it  was  not  the  country  of  the 
man  by  which  I  was  moved — but  the  man  of  that  country 
wanted  wisdom  and  held  principles  incompatible  with  freedom. 

It  is  a  long  time,  Mr.  Speaker,  since  I  have  attended  in 
Parliament.  When  the  resolution  was  taken  in  the  House  to 
tax  America,  I  was  ill  in  bed.  If  I  could  have  endured  to  have 
been  carried  in  my  bed,  so  great  was  the  agitation  of  my  mind 
for  the  consequences,  I  would  have  solicited  some  kind  hand 
to  have  laid  me  down  on  this  floor,  to  have  borne  my  testimony 
against  it !  It  is  now  an  Act  that  has  passed — I  would  speak 
with  decency  of  every  Act  of  this  House,  but  I  must  beg  the 
indulgence  of  the  House  to  speak  of  it  with  freedom. 

I  hope  a  day  may  be  soon  appointed  to  consider  the  state 
of  the  nation  with  respect  to  America.  I  hope  gentlemen  will 
come  to  this  debate  with  all  the  temper  and  impartiality  that 
his  Majesty  recommends,  and  the  importance  of  the  subject 
requires.  A  subject  of  greater  importance  than  ever  engaged 
the  attention  of  this  House  !  that  subject  only  excepted,  when, 
near  a  century  ago,  it  was  the  question  whether  you  yourselves 
were  to  be  bound  or  free.     In  the  meantime,  as  I  cannot 


CHATHAM  59 

depend  upon  health  for  any  future  day,  such  is  the  nature  of 
my  infirmities,  I  will  beg  to  say  a  few  words  at  present,  leaving 
the  justice,  the  equity,  the  policy,  the  expediency  of  the  Act 
to  another  time.  I  will  only  speak  to  one  point,  a  point  which 
seems  not  to  have  been  generally  understood — I  mean  to  the 
right.  Some  gentlemen  (alluding  to  Mr.  Nugent),  seem  to 
have  considered  it  as  a  point  of  honour.  If  gentlemen  consider 
it  in  that  light,  they  leave  all  measures  of  right  and  wrong  to 
follow  a  delusion  that  may  lead  to  destruction.  It  is  my 
opinion,  that  this  Kingdom  has  no  right  to  lay  a  tax  upon  the 
colonies.  At  the  same  time  I  assert  the  authority  of  this 
Kingdom  over  the  colonies  to  be  sovereign  and  supreme  in 
every  circumstance  of  government  and  legislation  whatsoever. — 
They  are  the  subjects  of  this  Kingdom,  equally  entitled  with 
yourselves  to  all  the  natural  rights  of  mankind  and  the  pecu- 
liar privileges  of  Englishmen  :  equally  bound  by  its  laws, 
and  equally  participating  in  the  constitution  of  this  free 
country.  The  Americans  are  the  sons,  not  the  bastards,  of 
England.  Taxation  is  no  part  of  the  governing  or  legislative 
power.  The  taxes  are  a  voluntary  gift  and  grant  of  the 
Commons  alone.  In  legislation  the  three  estates  of  the  realm 
are  alike  concerned,  but  the  concurrence  of  the  Peers  and  the 
Crown  to  a  tax  is  only  necessary  to  close  with  the  form  of  a 
law.  The  gift  and  grant  is  of  the  Commons  alone.  In  ancient 
days,  the  Crown,  the  Barons,  and  the  Clergy  possessed  the 
lands.  In  those  days,  the  Barons  and  the  Clergy  gave  and 
granted  to  the  Crown.  They  gave  and  granted  what  was  their 
own.  At  present  since  the  discovery  of  America,  and  other 
circumstances  permitting,  the  Commons  are  become  the 
proprietors  of  the  land.  The  Church  (God  bless  it  !)  has  but 
a  pittance.  The  property  of  the  Lords,  compared  with  that 
of  the  Commons,  is  as  a  drop  of  water  in  the  ocean  ;  and  this 
House  represents  those  Commons,  the  proprietors  of  the  lands, 
and  those  proprietors  virtually  represent  the  rest  of  the  inhabi- 
tants. When,  therefore,  in  the  House  we  give  and  grant,  we  give 
and  grant  what  is  our  own.  But  in  an  American  tax  what 
do  we  do  ?  We,  your  Majesty's  Commons  for  Great  Britain, 
give  and  grant  to  your  Majesty, — what  ?  Our  own  property  ? 
No  !  We  give  and  grant  to  your  Majesty  the  property  of 
your  Majesty's  Commons  in  America.  It  is  an  absurdity  in 
terms. 


eO  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

The  distinction  between  legislation  and  taxation  is  essen- 
tially necessary  to  liberty.  The  Crown,  the  Peers,  are  equally 
legislative  powers  with  the  Commons.  If  taxation  be  a  part  of 
simple  legislation,  the  Crown,  the  Peers,  have  rights  in  taxation 
as  well  as  yourselves  ;  rights  which  they  claim,  which  they 
will  exercise,  whenever  the  principle  can  be  supported  by 
power. 

There  is  an  idea  in  some,  that  the  colonies  are  virtually 
represented  in  this  House.  I  would  fain  know  by  whom  an 
American  is  represented  here  ?  Is  he  represented  by  any 
knight  of  the  shire,  in  any  county  in  this  Kingdom  ?  Would 
to  God  that  respectable  representation  was  augmented  to  a  greater 
number  !  or  will  you  tell  him  that  he  is  represented  by  any 
representative  of  a  borough  ? — a  borough  which  perhaps  no 
man  ever  saw.  This  is  what  is  called  the  rotten  part  of  the 
constitution.  It  cannot  continue  a  century — if  it  does  not 
drop,  it  must  be  amputated.  The  idea  of  a  virtual  representa- 
tion of  America  in  this  House  is  the  most  contemptible  idea 
that  ever  entered  into  the  head  of  man — it  does  not  deserve  a 
serious  refutation. 

The  Commons  of  America,  represented  in  their  several 
assemblies,  have  ever  been  in  possession  of  the  exercise  of  this 
their  constitutional  right,  of  giving  and  granting  their  own 
money.  They  would  have  been  slaves  if  they  had  not  enjoyed 
it.  At  the  same  time  this  Kingdom,  as  the  supreme  governing 
and  legislative  power,  has  always  bound  the  colonies  by  her 
laws,  by  her  regulations  and  restrictions  in  trade,  in  naviga- 
tion, in  manufactures — in  everything  except  that  of  taking 
their  money  out  of  their  pockets  without  their  consent. 

Here  I  would  draw  the  line,  "  Ultra  quam  citraque  nequit 
consist  ere  rectum." 


BURKE 

No  great  orator  has  produced  so  much  effect  upon  posterity 
as  Burke  in  proportion  to  the  influence  of  his  speeches  when 
they  were  deHvered.  Burke  habitually  looked  beyond  the 
audience  he  was  addressing  and  the  circumstances  of  the  time. 
His  business  was  the  application  of  principles  to  the  problems 
of  the  day.  He  was  never  satisfied  with  the  second  best.  He 
believed  that  the  British  Constitution,  rightly  interpreted, 
would  solve  any  political  difficulty  which  presented  itself,  if 
the  remedial  measures  were  applied  resolutely,  and  in  time. 
That  the  Constitution  itself  required  altering  he  did  not  admit. 
He  held  that  by  a  process  of  natural  expansion  it  would  com- 
prehend new  situations,  and  provide  for  fresh  developments. 
He  did  not,  for  instance,  doubt  that  Parliament  had  a  right 
to  tax  the  colonies.  He  only  maintained  that,  as  they  were  not 
represented  there,  it  was  unjust  and  improper  to  tax  them. 
Acknowledging  that  legislation  included  taxation,  he  argued 
that  only  the  House  of  Commons  could  tax  the  people  of  Great 
Britain,  and  that  it  could  only  tax  them  because  they  elected 
it.  Burke  always  maintained  that  he  was  practical  and  busi- 
nesslike in  his  views.  He  held  that  those  were  the  most  prac- 
tical who  clung  most  firmly  to  the  general  principles  which 
determined  the  functions  of  government.  It  would  not  be 
quite  true  to  say  that  Burke's  speeches  were  spoken  essays. 
They  are  different  in  form  from  his  political  pamphlets,  such 
as  the  Thoughts  on  the  Cause  of  the  Present  Discontents.  But 
substantially  they  are  similar.  Burke's  mind  was  so  con- 
stituted that  it  took  in  with  equal  readiness  the  most  abstract 
proposition  and  the  most  particular  detail.  If  he  called  upon 
the  House  of  Commons  for  an  effort  of  mind,  and  a  strain  of 
attention,  which  few  members  were  able  or  willing  to  make  or 
undergo,  he  undoubtedly  laid  the  groundwork  upon  which  the 

61 


62  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

policy  of  the  future  was  built.  When  Voltaire's  friend  wrote 
an  Ode  to  Posterity,  Voltaire  feared  that  it  would  not  reach  its 
address.  Burke  avoided  the  danger  of  falling  between  two 
stools.  Yet  it  is  not  difficult  to  see  why  his  speeches  often  failed 
for  the  purposes  of  the  moment.  They  appealed  to  higher 
motives  and  larger  issues  than  those  which  usually  dominate 
parties  or  politicians.  That  is  why  they  can  still  be  read  with 
profit  by  students  of  political  philosophy,  as  well  as  by  masters 
of  practical  statesmanship.  With  such  materials  as  England 
in  the  eigh'teenth  century  gave  him,  Burke  constructed  an 
edifice  of  durable  statecraft  which  has  served  as  a  model  for 
political  architects  in  every  country  since  his  time.  He 
had  the  instinct  which  discerns  what  is  essential,  and  rejects 
what  is  accidental.  He  valued  theories  that  were  productive, 
and  experience  that  could  be  idealised.  He  was  the  great 
designer  of  policy,  because  he  reconciled  ideas  with  knowledge, 
and  combined  knowledge  with  ideas.  His  contemporaries 
never  called  him  unphilosophical.  His  successors  have  not 
called  him  unpractical.  He  is  the  one  English  statesman, 
perhaps  the  one  statesman,  who  could  refer  to  principle  on  all 
occasions  without  losing  his  hold  upon  practice,  and  keep  a 
firm  grip  of  general  doctrines  without  forgetting  the  art  of 
adapting  them  to  concrete  examples.  His  greatness  can  only 
be  understood  by  thinking  of  him  in  his  double  capacity  as  a 
philosopher  and  a  statesman. 

Conciliation  with  America 

House  of  Commons,  March  22nd,  1775 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  hope.  Sir,  that,  notwithstanding  the  austerity  of 
the  chair,  your  good  nature  will  incline  you  into  some  degree  of 
indulgence  towards  human  frailty.  You  will  not  think  it  un- 
natural that  those  who  have  an  object  depending,  which  strongly 
engages  their  hopes  and  fears,  should  be  somewhat  inclined 
to  superstition.  As  I  came  into  the  House  full  of  anxiety 
about  the  event  of  my  motion,  I  found  to  my  infinite  surprise 


BURKE  63 

that  the  grand  penal  bill,  by  which  we  had  passed  sentence 
on  the  trade  and  sustenance  of  America,  is  to  be  returned 
to  us  from  the  other  House.  I  do  confess,  I  could  not  help 
looking  on  this  event  as  a  fortunate  omen.  I  look  upon  it  as 
a  sort  of  providential  favour,  by  which  we  are  put  once  more 
in  possession  of  our  dehberative  capacity,  upon  a  business 
so  very  questionable  in  its  nature,  so  very  uncertain  in  its  issue. 
By  the  return  of  this  bill,  which  seemed  to  have  taken  its 
flight  forever,  we  are,  at  this  very  instant,  nearly  as  free  to 
choose  a  plan  for  our  American  Government  as  we  were  on 
the  first  day  of  the  session.  If,  Sir,  we  incline  to  j:he  side  of 
conciliation,  we  are  not  at  all  embarrassed  (unless  we  please 
to  make  ourselves  so)  by  any  incongruous  mixture  of  coercion 
and  restraint.  We  are  therefore  called  upon,  as  it  were,  by  a 
superior  warning  voice  again  to  attend  to  America  ;  to  attend 
to  the  whole  of  it  together  ;  and  to  review  the  subject  with  an 
unusual  degree  of  care  and  calmness. 

Surely  it  is  an  awful  subject,  or  there  is  none  so  on  this  side 
of  the  grave.  When  I  first  had  the  honour  of  a  seat  in  this 
House,  the  affairs  of  that  continent  pressed  themselves  upon 
us  as  the  most  important  and  most  delicate  object  of  Parlia- 
mentary attention.  My  little  share  in  this  great  deliberation 
oppressed  me.  I  found  myself  a  partaker  in  a  very  high  trust : 
and  having  no  sort  of  reason  to  rely  on  the  strength  of  my 
natural  abilities  for  the  proper  execution  of  that  trust,  I  was 
obliged  to  take  more  than  common  pains  to  instruct  myself 
in  everything  which  relates  to  our  colonies.  I  was  not  less 
under  the  necessity  of  forming  some  fixed  ideas  concerning  the 
general  policy  of  the  British  Empire.  Something  of  this  sort 
seemed  to  be  indispensable,  in  order,  amid  so  vast  a  fluctuation 
of  passions  and  opinions,  to  concentrate  my  thoughts  ;  to 
ballast  my  conduct ;  to  preserve  me  from  being  blown  about 
by  every  wind  of  fashionable  doctrine.  I  really  did  not  think 
it  safe  or  manly  to  have  fresh  principles  to  seek  upon  every 
fresh  mail  which  should  arrive  from  America. 

At  that  period  I  had  the  fortune  to  find  myself  in  perfect 
concurrence  with  a  large  majority  in  this  House.  Bowing 
under  that  high  authority,  and  penetrated  with  the  sharpness 
and  strength  of  that  early  impression,  I  have  continued  ever 
since  in  my  original  sentiments  without  the  least  deviation. 
Whether  this  be  owing  to  an  obstinate  perseverance  in  error. 


64  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

or  to  a  religious  adherence  to  what  appears  to  me  truth  and 
reason,  it  is  in  your  equity  to  judge. 

Sir,  Parhament  having  an  enlarged  view  of  objects,  made, 
during  this  interval,  more  frequent  changes  in  their  sentiment 
and  their  conduct  than  could  be  justified  in  a  particular  person 
upon  the  contracted  scale  of  private  information.  But  though 
I  do  not  hazard  anything  approaching  to  a  censure  on  the 
motives  of  former  Parliaments  to  all  those  alterations,  one 
fact  is  undoubted — that  under  them  the  state  of  America  has 
been  kept  in  continual  agitation.  Everything  administered 
as  remedy  to  the  public  complaint  if  it  did  not  produce,  was 
at  least  followed  by,  a  heightening  of  the  distemper  ;  until, 
by  a  variety  of  experiments,  that  important  country  has  been 
brought  into  her  present  situation — a  situation  which  I  will 
not  miscall,  which  I  dare  not  name,  which  I  scarcely  know 
how  to  comprehend  in  the  terms  of  any  description. 

In  this  posture,  sir,  things  stood  at  the  beginning  of  the 
session.  About  that  time,  a  worthy  member  of  great  Parlia- 
mentary experience,  who,  in  the  year  1766,  filled  the  chair 
of  the  American  Committee  with  much  ability,  took  me  aside, 
and,  lamenting  the  present  aspect  of  our  politics,  told  me 
things  were  come  to  such  a  pass  that  our  former  methods  of 
proceeding  in  the  House  would  be  no  longer  tolerated.  That 
the  public  tribunal  (never  too  indulgent  to  a  long  and  unsuc- 
cessful opposition)  would  now  scrutinize  our  conduct  with 
unusual  severity.  That  the  very  vicissitudes  and  shiftings 
of  ministerial  measures,  instead  of  convicting  their  authors 
of  inconstancy  and  want  of  system,  would  be  taken  as  an 
occasion  of  charging  us  with  a  predetermined  discontent, 
which  nothing  could  satisfy  ;  while  we  accused  every  measure 
of  vigour  as  cruel,  and  every  proposal  of  lenity  as  weak  and 
irresolute.  The  public,  he  said,  would  not  have  patience  to 
see  us  play  the  game  out  with  our  adversaries  ;  we  must  pro- 
duce our  hand.  It  would  be  expected  that  those  who,  for 
many  years,  had  been  active  in  such  affairs,  should  show  that 
they  had  formed  some  clear  and  decided  principles  of  colony 
government  and  were  capable  of  drawing  out  something  like 
a  platform  of  the  ground  which  might  be  laid  for  future  and 
permanent  tranquillity. 

I  felt  the  truth  of  what  my  honourable  friend  represented, 
but  I  felt  my  situation,  too.     His  application  might  have  been 


BURKE  65 

made  with  far  greater  propriety  to  many  other  gentlemen. 
No  man  was,  indeed,  ever  better  disposed  or  worse  quahfied 
for  such  an  undertaking  than  myself.  Though  I  gave  so  far 
into  his  opinion  that  I  immediately  threw  my  thoughts  into  a 
sort  of  Parliamentary  form,  I  was  by  no  means  equally  ready 
to  produce  them.  It  generally  argues  some  degree  of  natural 
impotence  of  mind,  or  some  want  of  knowledge  of  the  world, 
to  hazard  plans  of  government,  except  from  a  seat  of  authority. 
Propositions  are  made,  not  only  ineffectually,  but  somewhat 
disreputably,  when  the  minds  of  men  are  not  properly  disposed 
for  their  reception  ;  and,  for  my  part,  I  am  not  ambitious 
of  ridicule — not  absolutely  a  candidate  for  disgrace. 

Besides,  Sir,  to  speak  the  plain  truth,  I  have  in  general 
no  very  exalted  opinion  of  the  virtue  of  paper  government, 
nor  of  any  politics  in  which  the  plan  is  to  be  wholly  separated 
from  the  execution.  But  w^hen  I  saw  that  anger  and  violence 
prevailed  every  day  more  and  more,  and  that  things  were 
hastening  towards  an  incurable  alienation  of  our  colonies, 
I  confess  my  caution  gave  way.  I  felt  this  as  one  of  those  few 
moments  in  which  decorum  yields  to  a  higher  duty.  Public 
calamity  is  a  mighty  leveller,  and  there  are  occasions  when 
any,  even  the  slightest,  chance  of  doing  good,  must  be  laid 
hold  on,  even  by  the  most  inconsiderable  person. 

To  restore  order  and  repose  to  an  empire  so  great  and  so 
distracted  as  ours,  is,  merely  in  the  attempt,  an  undertaking 
that  would  ennoble  the  flights  of  the  highest  genius,  and  obtain 
pardon  for  the  efforts  of  the  meanest  understanding.  Strug- 
gling a  good  while  with  these  thoughts,  by  degrees  I  felt 
myself  more  firm.  I  derived,  at  length,  some  confidence  from 
what  in  other  circumstances  usuaUy  produces  timidity.  I 
grew  less  anxious,  even  from  the  idea  of  my  own  insignificance. 
For,  judging  of  what  you  are  by  what  you  ought  to  be,  I 
persuaded  myself  that  you  would  not  reject  a  reasonable  pro- 
position because  it  had  nothing  but  its  reason  to  recommend 
it.  On  the  other  hand,  being  totally  destitute  of  all  shadow 
of  influence,  natural  or  adventitious,  I  was  very  sure  that  if 
my  proposition  were  futile  or  dangerous — if  it  were  weakly 
conceived  or  improperly  timed,  there  was  nothing  exterior 
to  it  of  power  to  awe,  dazzle,  or  delude  you.  You  will  see  it 
just  as  it  is,  and  you  will  treat  it  just  as  it  deserves. 

The  PROPOSITION  is  peace.     Not  peace  through  the  medium 

5— (2170) 


66  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

of  war  ;  not  peace  to  be  hunted  through  the  labyrinth  of 
intricate  and  endless  negotiations  ;  not  peace  to  arise  out  of 
universal  discord,  fomented  from  principle,  in  all  parts  of 
the  empire  ;  not  peace  to  depend  on  the  juridical  determina- 
tion of  perplexing  questions,  or  the  precise  marking  the  shadowy 
boundaries  of  a  complex  government.  It  is  simple  peace, 
sought  in  its  natural  course,  and  its  ordinary  haunts.  It  is 
peace  sought  in  the  spirit  of  peace,  and  laid  in  principles 
purely  pacific.  I  propose,  by  removing  the  ground  of  the 
difference,  and  by  restoring  the  former  unsuspecting  confidence 
of  the  colonies  in  mother  country  to  give  permanent  satisfaction 
to  your  people  ;  and,  far  from  a  scheme  of  ruling  by  discord, 
to  reconcile  them  to  each  other  in  the  same  act,  and  by  the 
bond  of  the  very  same  interest,  which  reconciles  them  to 
British   government. 

My  idea  is  nothing  more.  Refined  policy  ever  has  been  the 
parent  of  confusion,  and  ever  will  be  so  as  long  as  the  world 
endures.  Plain  good  intention,  which  is  as  easily  discovered 
at  the  first  view  as  fraud  is  surely  detected  at  last,  is  (let  me 
say)  of  no  mean  force  in  the  government  of  mankind.  Genuine 
simplicity  of  heart  is  a  healing  and  cementing  principle.  My 
plan,  therefore,  being  formed  on  the  most  simple  grounds 
imaginable,  may  disappoint  some  people  when  they  hear  it. 
It  has  nothing  to  recommend  it  to  the  pruriency  of  curious  ears. 
There  is  nothing  at  all  new  and  captivating  in  it.  It  has 
nothing  of  the  splendour  of  the  project  which  has  been  lately 
laid  upon  your  table  by  the  noble  Lord  in  the  blue  ribbon. 
It  does  not  propose  to  fill  your  lobby  with  squabbling  colony 
agents,  who  will  require  the  interposition  of  your  mace  at  every 
instant  to  keep  the  peace  among  them.  It  does  not  institute 
a  magnificent  auction  of  finance,  where  captivated  provinces 
come  to  general  ransom  by  bidding  against  each  other  until 
you  knock  down  the  hammer  and  determine  a  proportion  of 
payment  beyond  all  the  powers  of  algebra  to  equalize  and 
settle. 

The  plan  which  I  shall  presume  to  suggest  derives,  however, 
one  great  advantage  from  the  proposition  and  registry  of  that 
noble  Lord's  project.  The  idea  of  conciliation  is  admissible. 
First  the  House,  in  accepting  the  resolution  moved  by  the 
noble  Lord,  has  admitted,  notwithstanding  the  menacing 
front  of  our  address,  notwithstanding  our  heavy  bill  of  pains 


BURKE  67 

and  penalties,  that  we  do  not  think  ourselves  precluded  from 
all  ideas  of  free  grace  and  bounty. 

The  House  has  gone  farther  ;  it  has  declared  conciliation 
admissible,  previous  to  any  submission  on  the  part  of  America. 
It  has  even  shot  a  good  deal  beyond  that  mark,  and  has 
admitted  that  the  complaints  of  our  former  mode  of  exerting 
the  right  of  taxation  were  not  wholly  unfounded.  That  right, 
thus  exerted,  is  allowed  to  have  had  something  reprehensible 
in  it,  something  unwise,  or  something  grievous  ;  since  in  the 
midst  of  our  heat  and  resentment,  we,  of  ourselves,  have 
proposed  a  capital  alteration,  and,  in  order  to  get  rid  of  what 
seemed  so  very  exceptionable,  have  instituted  a  mode  that 
is  altogether  new ;  one  that  is,  indeed,  wholly  ahen  from  all 
the  ancient  methods  and  forms  of  Parliament. 

The  principle  of  this  proceeding  is  large  enough  for  my 
purpose.  The  means  proposed  by  the  noble  Lord  for  carrying 
his  ideas  into  execution,  I  think,  indeed,  are  very  indifferently 
suited  to  the  end  ;  and  this  I  shall  endeavour  to  show  you 
before  I  sit  down.  But  for  the  present,  I  take  my  ground  on 
the  admitted  principle.  I  mean  to  give  peace.  Peace  implies 
reconciliation  ;  and,  where  there  has  been  a  material  dispute, 
reconciliation  does  in  a  manner  always  imply  concession  on  the 
one  part  or  on  the  other.  In  this  state  of  things  I  make  no 
difficulty  in  affirming  that  the  proposal  ought  to  originate 
from  us.  Great  and  acknowledged  force  is  not  impaired, 
either  in  effect  or  in  opinion,  by  an  unwillingness  to  exert  itself. 
The  superior  power  may  offer  peace  with  honour  and  with 
safety.  Such  an  offer  from  such  a  power  will  be  attributed 
to  magnanimity.  But  the  concessions  of  the  weak  are  the 
concessions  of  fear.  When  such  a  one  is  disarmed,  he  is 
wholly  at  the  mercy  of  his  superior,  and  he  loses  forever  that 
time  and  those  chances  which,  as  they  happen  to  all  men,  are 
the  strength  and  resources  of  all  inferior  power. 

The  capital  leading  questions  on  which  you  must  this  day 
decide  are  these  two  :  First,  whether  you  ought  to  concede  ;  and, 
secondly,  what  your  concession  ought  to  he. 

On  the  first  of  these  questions  we  have  gained,  as  I  have 
just  taken  the  liberty  of  observing  to  you,  some  ground.  But 
I  am  sensible  that  a  good  deal  more  is  stiU  to  be  done.  Indeed, 
sir,  to  enable  us  to  determine  both  on  the  one  and  the  other 
of  these   great  questions  with  a  firm   and  precise   judgment. 


68  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

I  think  it  may  be  necessary  to  consider  distinctly  the 
true  nature  and  the  pecuHar  circumstances  of  the  object 
which  we  have  before  us  ;  because,  after  all  our  struggle, 
whether  we  will  or  not,  we  must  govern  America  according  to 
that  nature  and  to  those  circumstances,  and  not  according  to 
our  imaginations  ;  not  according  to  abstract  ideas  of  right  ; 
by  no  means  according  to  mere  general  theories  of  government, 
the  resort  to  which  appears  to  me,  in  our  present  situation, 
no  better  than  arrant  trifling.  I  shall  therefore  endeavour, 
with  your  leave,  to  lay  before  you  some  of  the  most  material 
of  these  circumstances  in  as  full  and  as  clear  a  manner  as  I  am 
able  to  state  them. 

(1)  The  first  thing  that  we  have  to  consider  with  regard  to 
the  nature  of  the  object,  is  the  number  of  people  in  the  Colonies. 
I  have  taken  for  some  years  a  good  deal  of  pains  on  that  point. 
I  can  by  no  calculation  justify  myself  in  placing  the  number 
below  two  millions  of  inhabitants  of  our  own  European  blood 
and  colour,  besides  at  least  five  hundred  thousand  others,  who 
form  no  inconsiderable  part  of  the  strength  and  opulence  of 
the  whole.  This,  Sir,  is,  I  believe,  about  the  true  number. 
There  is  no  occasion  to  exaggerate  where  plain  truth  is  of  so 
much  weight  and  importance.  But  whether  I  put  the  present 
numbers  too  high  or  too  low,  is  a  matter  of  little  moment. 
Such  is  the  strength  with  which  population  shoots  in  that  part 
of  the  world,  that,  state  the  numbers  as  high  as  we  will,  while 
the  dispute  continues,  the  exaggeration  ends.  While  we  are 
discussing  any  given  magnitude,  they  are  grown  to  it.  While 
we  spend  our  time  in  deliberating  on  the  mode  of  governing 
two  millions,  we  shall  find  we  have  two  millions  more  to 
manage.  Your  children  do  not  grow  faster  from  infancy  to 
manhood,  than  they  spread  from  families  to  communities, 
and  from  villages  to  nations. 

I  put  this  consideration  of  the  present  and  the  growing 
numbers  in  the  front  of  our  deliberation,  because,  Sir,  this 
consideration  will  make  it  evident  to  a  blunter  discernment 
than  yours,  that  no  partial,  narrow,  contracted,  pinched, 
occasional  system  will  be  at  all  suitable  to  such  an  object. 
It  will  show  you  that  it  is  not  to  be  considered  as  one  of  those 
7ninima  which  are  out  of  the  eye  and  consideration  of  the  law  ; 
not  a  paltry  excrescence  of  the  state  ;  not  a  mean  dependent, 
who  may  be  neglected  with  little  damage,  and  provoked  with 


BURKE  69 

little  danger.  It  will  prove  that  some  degree  of  care  and  caution 
is  required  in  the  handling  such  an  object  ;  it  will  show 
that  you  ought  not  in  reason  to  trifle  with  so  large  a  mass  of 
the  interests  and  feelings  of  the  human  race.  You  could  at  no 
time  do  so  without  guilt ;  and,  be  assured,  you  will  not  be 
able  to  do  it  long  with  impunity. 

(2)  But  the  population  of  this  country,  the  great  and  growing 
population,  though  a  very  important  consideration,  will  lose 
much  of  its  weight  if  not  combined  with  other  circumstances. 
The  commerce  of  your  colonies  is  out  of  all  proportion  beyond 
the  numbers  of  the  people.  This  ground  of  their  commerce, 
indeed,  has  been  trod  some  days  ago,  and  with  great  ability, 
by  a  distinguished  person  at  your  bar.  This  gentleman  after 
thirty-five  years — ^it  is  so  long  since  he  appeared  at  the  same 
place  to  plead  for  the  commerce  of  Great  Britain — ^has  come 
again  before  you  to  plead  the  same  cause,  without  any  other 
effect  of  time,  than  that,  to  the  fire  of  imagination  and  extent 
of  erudition  which  even  then  marked  him  as  one  of  the  first 
literary  characters  of  his  age,  he  has  added  a  consummate 
knowledge  in  the  commercial  interest  of  his  country,  formed 
by  a  long  course  of  enlightened  and  discriminating  experience. 

Sir,  I  should  be  inexcusable  in  coming  after  such  a  person 
with  any  detail  if  a  great  part  of  the  members  who  now  fill  the 
House  had  not  the  misfortune  to  be  absent  when  he  appeared 
at  your  bar.  Besides,  Sir,  I  propose  to  take  the  matter  at 
periods  of  time  somewhat  different  from  his.  There  is,  if  I 
mistake  not,  a  point  of  view,  from  whence,  if  you  will  look 
at  this  subject,  it  is  impossible  that  it  should  not  make  an 
impression  upon  you. 

I  have  in  my  hand  two  accounts  :  one  a  comparative  state 
of  the  export  trade  of  England  to  its  colonies  as  it  stood  in 
the  year  1704  and  as  it  stood  in  the  year  1772  ;  the  other 
a  state  of  the  exports  trade  of  this  country  to  its  colonies  alone, 
as  it  stood  in  1772,  compared  with  the  whole  trade  of  England 
to  all  parts  of  the  world,  the  colonies  included,  in  the  year  1704. 
They  are  from  good  vouchers  ;  the  latter  period  from  the 
accounts  on  your  table,  the  earlier  from  an  original  manuscript 
of  Davenport,  who  first  estabhshed  the  Inspector-General's 
office,  which  has  been  ever  since  his  time  so  abundant  a  source 
of  pariiamentary  information. 

The  export  trade  to  the  colonies  consists  of  three  great 


70  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

branches  :  the  African,  which  terminating  almost  wholly  in 
the  colonies,  must  be  put  to  the  account  of  their  commerce  ; 
the  West  Indian,  and  the  North  American.  All  these  are  so 
interwoven  that  the  attempt  to  separate  them  would  tear 
to  pieces  the  contexture  of  the  whole,  and,  if  not  entirely 
destroy,  would  very  much  depreciate  the  value  of  all  the 
parts.  I  therefore  consider  these  three  denominations  to  be, 
what  in  effect  they  are,  one  trade. 

The  trade  to  the  colonies,  taken  on  the  export  side,  at  the 
beginning  of  this  century,  that  is,  in  the  year  1704,  stood  thus  : 

Exports  to  North  America  and  the  West  Indies         .          .     ;^483,265 
..    Africa 86.665 


;^569,930 


In  the  year  1772,  which  I  take  as  a  middle  year  between 
the  highest  and  the  lowest  of  those  lately  laid  on  your  table, 
the  account  was  as  follows : 

To  North  America  and  the  West  Indies  ....  ;^4.791.734 

,,    Africa                866,398 

To  which,   if  you   add   the  export  trade  from   Scotland, 

which  had  in  1704  no  existence 364,000 


;^6.022,132 


From  five  hundred  and  odd  thousand,  it  has  grown  to  six 
millions.  It  has  increased  no  less  than  twelve-fold.  This 
is  the  state  of  the  colony  trade,  as  compared  with  itself  at  these 
two  periods,  within  this  century  ;  and  this  is  the  matter  for 
meditation.  But  this  is  not  all.  Examine  my  second  account. 
See  how  the  export  trade  to  the  colonies  alone  in  1772  stood 
in  the  other  point  of  view,  that  is  as  compared  to  the  whole 
trade  of  England  in  1704. 

The  whole  export  trade  of  England  including  that  to  the 

colonies  in  1704 ;^6, 509,000 

Exported  to  the  colonies  alone,  in  1772    .  .  .  .     6,024,000 


Difference    .  .       :^485,000 


The  trade  with  America  alone  is  now  within  less  than 
£500,000  of  being  equal  to  what  this  great  commercial  nation, 
England,  carried  on  at  the  beginning  of  this  century  with  the 


BURKE  71 

whole  world  !  If  I  had  taken  the  largest  year  of  those  on  your 
table,  it  would  rather  have  exceeded.  But  it  will  be  said,  is 
not  this  American  trade  an  unnatural  protuberance,  that  has 
drawn  the  juices  from  the  rest  of  the  body  ?  The  reverse. 
It  is  the  very  food  that  has  nourished  every  other  part  into  its 
present  magnitude.  Our  general  trade  has  been  greatly  aug- 
mented, and  augmented  more  or  less  in  almost  every  part  to 
which  it  ever  extended,  but  with  this  material  difference,  that 
of  the  six  millions  which  in  the  beginning  of  the  century  con- 
stituted the  whole  mass  of  our  export  commerce,  the  colony 
trade  was  but  one-twelfth  part ;  it  is  now  (as  a  part  of  sixteen 
millions)  considerably  more  than  a  third  of  the  whole.  This 
is  the  relative  proportion  of  the  importance  of  the  colonies 
of  these  two  periods  ;  and  all  reasoning  concerning  our  mode 
of  treating  them  must  have  this  proportion  as  its  basis,  or  it  is 
a  reasoning  weak,  rotten,  and  sophistical. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  cannot  prevail  on  myself  to  hurry  over 
this  great  consideration.  It  is  good  for  us  to  be  here.  We 
stand  where  we  have  an  immense  view  of  what  is,  and  what  is 
past.  Clouds,  indeed,  and  darkness  rest  upon  the  future. 
Let  us,  however,  before  we  descend  from  this  noble  eminence, 
reflect  that  this  growth  of  our  national  prosperity  has  happened 
within  the  short  period  of  the  life  of  man.  It  has  happened 
within  sixty-eight  years.  There  are  those  alive  whose  memory 
might  touch  the  two  extremities.  For  instance,  my  Lord 
Bathurst  might  remember  all  the  stages  of  the  progress.  He 
was  in  1704  of  an  age  at  least  to  be  made  to  comprehend  such 
things.  He  was  then  old  enough  "Acta  parentum  jam  legere, 
et  qua  sit  potent  cognoscere  virtus."  Suppose,  Sir,  that  the 
angel  of  this  auspicious  youth,  foreseeing  the  many  virtues 
which  made  him  one  of  the  most  amiable,  as  he  is  one  of  the 
most  fortunate,  men  of  his  age,  had  opened  to  him  a  vision, 
that  when  in  the  fourth  generation,  the  third  prince  of  the 
House  of  Brunswick  had  sat  twelve  years  on  the  throne  of 
that  nation  which  by  the  happy  issue  of  moderate  and  healing 
councils  was  to  be  made  Great  Britain,  he  should  see  his  son 
Lord  Chancellor  of  England,  turn  back  the  current  of  hereditary 
dignity  to  its  fountain,  and  raise  him  to  a  higher  rank  of  peerage 
while  he  enriched  the  family  with  a  new  one.  If,  amid  these 
bright  and  happy  scenes  of  domestic  honour  and  prosperity, 
that  angel  should  have  drawn  up  the  curtain  and  unfolded  the 


72  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

rising  glories  of  his  country,  and  while  he  was  gazing  with 
admiration  on  the  then  commercial  grandeur  of  England,  the 
genius  should  point  out  to  him  a  little  speck,  scarce  visible  in 
the  mass  of  the  national  interest,  a  small  seminal  principle 
rather  than  a  formed  body,  and  should  tell  him  :  *'  Young 
man,  there  is  America — which  at  this  day  serves  for  little  more 
than  to  amuse  you  with  stories  of  savage  men  and  uncouth 
manners  ;  yet  shall,  before  you  taste  death,  show  itself  equal 
to  the  whole  of  that  commerce  which  now  attracts  the  envy 
of  the  world.  Whatever  England  has  been  growing  to  by  a 
progressive  increase  of  improvement,  brought  in  by  varieties 
of  people,  by  succession  of  civilizing  conquests  and  civilizing 
settlements  in  a  series  of  seventeen  hundred  years,  you  shall 
see  as  much  added  to  her  by  America  in  the  course  of  a  single 
life  !  "  If  this  state  of  his  country  had  been  foretold  to  him, 
would  it  not  require  all  the  sanguine  credulity  of  youth,  and 
all  the  fervid  glow  of  enthusiasm,  to  make  him  believe  it  ? 
Fortunate,  indeed,  if  he  lived  to  see  nothing  to  vary  the 
prospect  and  cloud  the  setting  of  his  day  ! 

Excuse  me,  sir,  if  turning  from  such  thoughts,  I  resume  this 
comparative  view  once  more.  You  have  seen  it  on  a  large  scale ; 
look  at  it  on  a  small  one.  I  will  point  out  to  your  attention  a 
particular  instance  of  it  in  the  single  province  of  Pennsylvania. 
In  the  year  1704  that  province  called  for  £11,459  in  value  of 
your  commodities,  native  and  foreign.  This  was  the  whole. 
What  did  it  demand  in  1772  ?  Why,  nearly  fifty  times  as  much  ; 
for  in  that  year  the  export  to  Pennsylvania  was  £507,909, 
nearly  equal  to  the  export  to  all  the  colonies  together  in  the 
first  period. 

I  choose,  sir,  to  enter  into  these  minute  and  particular 
details,  because  generalities,  which,  in  all  other  cases  are  apt 
to  heighten  and  raise  the  subject,  have  here  the  tendency  to 
sink  it.  When  we  speak  of  the  commerce  with  our  colonies, 
fiction  lags  after  truth ;  invention  is  unfruitful,  and 
imagination  cold  and  barren. 

So  far,  sir,  as  to  the  importance  of  the  object  in  the  view  of 
its  commerce,  as  concerned  in  the  exports  from  England.  If 
I  were  to  detail  the  imports,  I  could  show  how  many  enjoy- 
ments they  procure,  which  deceive  the  burden  of  life  ;  how 
many  materials  which  invigorate  the  springs  of  national  in- 
dustry, and  extend  and  animate  every  part  of  our  foreign  and 


BURKE  73 

domestic  commerce.  This  would  be  a  curious  subject  indeed  ; 
but  I  must  prescribe  bounds  to  myself  in  a  matter  so  vast  and 
various. 

(3)  I  pass,  therefore,  to  the  colonies  in  another  point  of  view 
— their  agriculture.  This  they  have  prosecuted  with  such  a 
spirit  that,  besides  feeding  plentifully  their  own  growing 
multitude,  their  annual  export  of  grain,  comprehending  rice, 
has  some  years  ago  exceeded  a  million  in  value.  Of  their  last 
harvest  I  am  persuaded  they  will  export  much  more.  At  the 
beginning  of  the  century  some  of  these  colonies  imported  com 
from  the  mother  country.  For  some  time  past  the  old  world 
has  been  fed  from  the  new.  The  scarcity  you  have  felt  would 
have  been  a  desolating  famine  if  this  child  of  your  old  age, 
with  a  true  filial  piety,  with  a  Roman  charity,  had  not  put  the 
full  breast  of  its  youthful  exuberance  to  the  mouth  of  its 
exhausted  parent. 

As  to  the  wealth  which  the  colonies  have  drawn  from  the  sea 
by  their  fisheries,  you  had  all  that  matter  fully  opened  at  your 
bar.  You  surely  thought  those  acquisitions  of  value,  for  they 
seemed  even  to  excite  your  envy  ;  and  yet,  the  spirit  by 
which  that  enterprising  employment  has  been  exercised 
ought  rather,  in  my  opinion,  to  have  raised  your  esteem  and 
admiration.  And  pray,  sir,  what  in  the  world  is  equal  to  it  ? 
Pass  by  the  other  parts,  and  look  at  the  manner  in  which  the 
people  of  New  England  have  of  late  carried  on  the  whale  fishery. 
While  we  follow  them  among  the  tumbling  mountains  of  ice, 
and  behold  them  penetrating  into  the  deepest  frozen  recesses 
of  Hudson's  Bay  and  Davis'  Straits — while  we  are  looking 
for  them  beneath  the  Arctic  circle,  we  hear  that  they  have 
pierced  into  the  opposite  region  of  polar  cold — that  they  are 
at  the  antipodes,  and  engaged  under  the  frozen  Serpent  of  the 
South.  Falkland  Island,  which  seemed  too  remote  and 
romantic  an  object  for  the  grasp  of  national  ambition,  is  but 
a  stage  and  resting-place  in  the  progress  of  their  victorious 
industry.  Nor  is  equinoctial  heat  more  discouraging  to  them 
than  the  accumulated  winter  of  both  the  poles.  We  know 
that  while  some  of  them  draw  the  line,  and  strike  the  harpoon 
on  the  coast  of  Africa,  others  run  the  longitude,  and  pursue 
their  gigantic  game  along  the  coast  of  Brazil.  No  sea  but 
what  is  vexed  by  their  fisheries.  No  climate  that  is  not 
witness  to  their  toils.     Neither  the  perseverance  of  Holland, 


74  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

nor  the  activity  of  France,  nor  the  dexterous  and  firm  sagacity 
of  EngHsh  enterprise,  ever  carried  this  most  perilous  mode  of 
hardy  industry  to  the  extent  to  which  it  has  been  pushed  by 
this  recent  people — a  people  who  are  still,  as  it  were,  but  in  the 
gristle,  and  not  yet  hardened  into  the  bone  of  manhood.  When 
I  contemplate  these  things — when  I  know  that  the  colonies 
in  general  owe  little  or  nothing  to  any  care  of  ours,  and  that 
they  are  not  squeezed  into  this  happy  form  by  the  constraints 
of  watchful  and  suspicious  government,  but  that,  through  a 
wise  and  salutary  neglect,  a  generous  nature  has  been  suffered 
to  take  her  own  way  to  perfection — when  I  reflect  upon  these 
effects — when  I  see  how  profitable  they  have  been  to  us,  I  feel 
all  the  pride  of  power  sink,  and  all  presumption  in  the  wisdom 
of  human  contrivances  melt  and  die  away  within  me.  My 
rigour  relents.     I  pardon  something  to  the  spirit  of  liberty. 

I  am  sensible,  sir,  that  all  of  which  I  have  asserted  in  my 
detail  is  admitted  in  the  gross,  but  that  quite  a  different 
conclusion  is  drawn  from  it.  America,  gentlemen  say,  is  a 
noble  object.  It  is  an  object  well  worth  fighting  for.  Cer- 
tainly it  is,  if  fighting  a  people  be  a  best  way  of  gaining  them. 
Gentlemen  in  this  respect  will  be  led  to  their  choice  of  means, 
by  their  complexions  and  their  habits.  Those  who  understand 
the  military  art  will,  of  course,  have  some  predilection  for  it. 
Those  who  wield  the  thunder  of  the  State  may  have  more 
confidence  in  the  efficacy  of  arms.  But  I  confess,  possibly  for 
want  of  this  knowledge,  my  opinion  is  much  more  in  favour 
of  prudent  management  than  of  force  ;  considering  force  not 
as  an  odious  but  a  feeble  instrument  for  preserving  a  people 
so  numerous,  so  active,  so  growing,  so  spirited  as  this,  in  a 
profitable  and  subordinate  connection  with  us. 

First,  sir,  permit  me  to  observe,  that  the  use  of  force  alone 
is  but  temporary.  It  may  subdue  for  a  moment,  but  it  does  not 
remove  the  necessity  of  subduing  again  ;  and  a  nation  is  not 
governed  which  is  perpetually  to  be  conquered. 

My  next  objection  is  its  uncertainty.  Terror  is  not  always  the 
effect  of  force  ;  and  an  armament  is  not  a  victory.  If  you  do 
not  succeed,  you  are  without  resource  ;  for,  conciliation  failing, 
force  remains  ;  but  force  failing,  no  farther  hope  of  reconcilia- 
tion is  left.  Power  and  authority  are  sometimes  bought  by 
kindness,  but  they  can  never  be  begged  as  alms  by  an 
impoverished  and  defeated  violence. 


BURKE  75 

A  farther  objection  to  force  is,  that  you  impair  the  object 
by  your  very  endeavours  to  preserve  it.  The  thing  you  fought 
for  is  not  the  thing  which  you  recover ;  but  depreciated,  sunk, 
wasted,  and  consumed  in  the  contest.  Nothing  less  will  con- 
tent me  than  whole  America.  I  do  not  choose  to  consume  its 
strength  along  with  our  own,  because  in  all  parts  it  is  the 
British  strength  that  I  consume.  I  do  not  choose  to  be  caught 
by  a  foreign  enemy  at  the  end  of  this  exhausting  conflict,  and 
still  less  in  the  midst  of  it.  I  may  escape  ;  but  I  can  make  no 
insurance  against  such  an  event.  Let  me  add,  that  I  do  not 
choose  wholly  to  break  the  American  spirit,  because  it  is  the 
spirit  that  has  made  the  country. 

Lastly,  we  have  no  sort  of  experience  in  favour  of  force  as  an 
instrument  in  the  rule  of  our  colonies.  Their  growth  and  their 
utility  have  been  owing  to  methods  altogether  different.  Our 
ancient  indulgence  has  been  said  to  be  pursued  to  a  fault.  It 
may  be  so  ;  but  we  know,  if  feeling  is  evidence,  that  our  fault 
was  more  tolerable  than  our  attempt  to  mend  it  ;  and  our  sin 
far  more  salutary  than  our  penitence. 

These,  sir,  are  my  reasons  for  not  entertaining  that  high 
opinion  of  untried  force,  by  which  many  gentlemen,  for  whose 
sentiments  in  other  particulars  I  have  great  respect,  seem  to  be 
so  greatly  captivated. 

But  there  is  still  behind  a  third  consideration  concerning 
this  object,  which  serves  to  determine  my  opinion  on  the  sort 
of  policy  which  ought  to  be  pursued  in  the  management  of 
America,  even  more  than  its  population  and  its  commerce — 
I  mean  its  temper  and  character.  In  this  character  of  the 
Americans  a  love  of  freedom  is  the  predominating  feature, 
which  marks  and  distinguishes  the  whole  ;  and,  as  an  ardent 
is  always  a  jealous  affection,  your  colonies  become  suspicious, 
restive,  and  untractable,  whenever  they  see  the  least  attempt 
to  wrest  from  them  by  force,  or  shuffle  from  them  by  chicane, 
what  they  think  the  only  advantage  worth  living  for.  This 
fierce  spirit  of  liberty  is  stronger  in  the  English  colonies 
probably  than  in  any  other  people  of  the  earth,  and  this  from 
a  variety  of  powerful  causes,  which,  to  understand  the  true 
temper  of  their  minds,  and  the  direction  which  this  spirit  takes, 
it  will  not  be  amiss  to  lay  open  somewhat  more  largely. 

First,  the  people  of  the  colonies  are  descendants  of  English- 
men.    England,  sir,  is  a  nation  which  still,  I  hope,  respects. 


76  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

and  formerly  adored,  her  freedom.  The  colonists  emigrated 
from  you  when  this  part  of  your  character  was  most  predomin- 
ant ;  and  they  took  this  bias  and  direction  the  moment  they 
parted  from  your  hands.  The}^  are,  therefore,  not  only  devoted 
to  liberty,  but  to  liberty  according  to  English  ideas  and  on 
English  principles.  Abstract  liberty,  like  other  mere  abstrac- 
tions, is  not  to  be  found.  Liberty  inheres  in  some  sensible 
object ;  and  every  nation  has  formed  to  itself  some  favourite 
point  which,  by  way  of  eminence,  becomes  the  criterion  of  their 
happiness.  It  happened,  you  know,  sir,  that  the  great  con- 
tests for  freedom  in  this  country  were,  from  the  earliest  times, 
chiefly  upon  the  question  of  taxing.  Most  of  the  contests  in 
the  ancient  Commonwealths  turned  primarily  on  the  right  of 
election  of  magistrates,  or  on  the  balance  among  the  several 
orders  of  the  State.  The  question  of  money  was  not  with  them 
so  immediate.  But  in  England  it  was  otherwise.  On  this 
point  of  taxes  the  ablest  pens  and  most  eloquent  tongues  have 
been  exercised  ;  the  greatest  spirits  have  acted  and  suffered. 
In  order  to  give  the  fullest  satisfaction  concerning  the  import- 
ance of  this  point,  it  was  not  only  necessary  for  those  who  in 
argument  defended  the  excellence  of  the  English  Constitution, 
to  insist  on  this  privilege  of  granting  money  as  a  dry  point  of 
fact,  and  to  prove  that  the  right  had  been  acknowledged  in 
ancient  parchments  and  blind  usages  to  reside  in  a  certain 
body  called  the  House  of  Commons.  They  went  much  farther  ; 
they  attempted  to  prove  (and  they  succeeded)  that  in  theory 
it  ought  to  be  so,  from  the  particular  nature  of  a  House  of 
Commons,  as  an  immediate  representative  of  the  people, 
whether  the  old  records  had  delivered  this  oracle  or  not.  They 
took  infinite  pains  to  inculcate,  as  a  fundamental  principle, 
that,  in  all  monarchies,  the  people  must,  in  effect,  themselves, 
mediately  or  immediately,  possess  the  power  of  granting  their 
own  money,  or  no  shadow  of  liberty  could  subsist.  The  colonies 
draw  from  you,  as  with  their  life  blood,  those  ideas  and  prin- 
ciples. Their  love  of  liberty,  as  with  you,  fixed  and  attached 
on  this  specific  point  of  taxing.  Liberty  might  be  safe  or 
might  be  endangered  in  twenty  other  particulars  witliout 
their  being  much  pleased  or  alarmed.  Here  they  felt  its  pulse  ; 
and  as  they  found  that  beat  they  thought  themselves  sick 
or  sound.  I  do  not  say  whether  they  were  right  or  wrong  in 
applying  your  general  arguments  to  their  own  case.     It  is 


BURKE  77 

not  easy,  indeed,  to  make  a  monopoly  of  theorems  and  corol- 
laries. The  fact  is,  that  they  did  thus  apply  those  general 
arguments ;  and  your  mode  of  governing  them,  whether 
through  lenity  or  indolence,  through  wisdom  or  mistake,  con- 
firmed them  in  the  imagination  that  they,  as  well  as  you,  had 
an  interest  in  these  common  principles. 

They  were  further  confirmed  in  these  pleasing  errors  by  the 
form  of  their  provincial  legislative  assemblies.  Their  govern- 
ments are  popular  in  a  high  degree  ;  some  are  merely  popular  ; 
in  all,  the  popular  representative  is  the  most  weighty ;  and  this 
share  of  the  people  in  their  ordinary  governments  never 
fails  to  inspire  them  with  lofty  sentiments,  and  with  a  strong 
aversion  from  whatever  tends  to  deprive  them  of  their  chief 
importance. 

If  anything  were  wanting  to  this  necessary  operation  of  the 
form  of  government,  religion  would  have  given  it  a  complete 
effect.  Religion,  always  a  principle  of  energy,  in  this  new 
people  is  no  way  worn  out  or  impaired ;  and  their  mode  of 
professing  it  is  also  one  main  cause  of  this  free  spirit.  The 
people  are  Protestants  ;  and  of  that  kind  which  is  the  most 
averse  to  all  implicit  submission  of  mind  and  opinion.  This 
is  a  persuasion  not  only  favourable  to  hberty,  but  built  upon  it. 
I  do  not  think,  sir,  that  the  reason  of  this  averseness  in  the 
dissenting  churches  from  all  that  looks  like  absolute  govern- 
ment, is  so  much  to  be  sought  in  their  religious  tenets  as  in 
their  history.  Everyone  knows  that  the  Roman  Catholic 
religion  is  at  least  coevcd  with  most  of  the  governments  where 
it  prevails,  that  it  has  generally  gone  hand  in  hand  with  them, 
and  received  great  favour  and  every  kind  of  support  from 
authority.  The  Church  of  England,  too,  was  formed  from  her 
cradle  under  the  nursing  care  of  regular  governments.  But 
the  dissenting  interests  have  sprung  up  in  direct  opposition  to 
all  the  ordinary  powers  of  the  world,  and  could  justify  that 
opposition  only  on  a  strong  claim  to  natural  liberty.  Their 
very  existence  depended  on  the  powerful  and  unremitted 
assertion  of  that  claim.  All  Protestantism,  even  the  most  cold 
and  passive,  is  a  kind  of  dissent.  But  the  religion  most  pre- 
valent in  our  northern  colonies  is  a  refinement  on  the  principle 
of  resistence  ;  it  is  the  dissidence  of  dissent ;  and  the  Pro- 
testantism of  the  Protestant  religion.  This  religion,  under 
a   variety   of  denominations,   agreeing    nothing    but    in    the 


78  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

communion  of  the  spirit  of  liberty,  is  predominant  in  most  of 
the  northern  provinces  ;  where  the  Church  of  England,  not- 
withstanding its  legal  rights,  is  in  reality  no  more  than  a  sort 
of  private  sect,  not  composing,  most  probably,  the  tenth  of 
the  people.  The  colonists  left  England  when  this  spirit  was 
high,  and  in  the  emigrants  was  the  highest  of  all ;  and  even 
that  stream  of  foreigners,  which  has  been  constantly  flowing 
into  these  colonies,  has,  for  the  greatest  part,  been  composed 
of  dissenters  from  the  establishments  of  their  several  countries, 
and  have  brought  with  them  a  temper  and  character  far  from 
alien  to  that  of  the  people  with  whom  they  mixed. 

Sir,  I  can  perceive  by  their  manner  that  some  gentlemen 
object  to  the  latitude  of  this  description,  because  in  the  southern 
colonies  the  Church  of  England  forms  a  large  body,  and  has  a 
regular  establishment.  It  is  certainly  true.  There  is,  how- 
ever, a  circumstance  attending  these  colonies  which,  in  my 
opinion,  fully  counterbalances  this  difference,  and  makes  the 
spirit  of  liberty  still  more  high  and  haughty  than  in  those  to  the 
northward.  It  is  that  in  Virginia  and  the  Carolinas  they  have 
a  vast  multitude  of  slaves.  Where  this  is  the  case  in  any  part 
of  the  world,  those  who  are  free  are  by  far  the  most  proud  and 
jealous  of  their  freedom.  Freedom  is  to  them  not  only  an 
enjoyment,  but  a  kind  of  rank  and  privilege.  Not  seeing  there 
that  freedom  as  in  countries  where  it  is  a  common  blessing, 
and  as  broad  and  general  as  the  air,  may  be  united  with  much 
abject  toil,  with  great  misery,  with  all  the  exterior  of  servitude, 
liberty  looks  among  them  like  something  that  is  more  noble 
and  liberal.  I  do  not  mean,  sir,  to  commend  the  superior 
morality  of  this  sentiment,  which  has  at  least  as  much  pride 
as  virtue  in  it  ;  but  I  cannot  alter  the  nature  of  man.  The 
fact  is  so ;  and  these  people  of  the  southern  colonies  are  much 
more  strongly,  and  with  a  higher  and  more  stubborn  spirit, 
attached  to  liberty  than  those  to  the  northward.  Such  were 
all  the  ancient  commonwealths  ;  such  were  our  Gothic  ances- 
tors ;  such,  in  our  days,  were  the  Poles,  and  such  will  be  all 
masters  of  slaves  who  are  not  slaves  themselves.  In  such  a 
people  the  haughtiness  of  domination  combines  with  the  spirit 
of  freedom,  fortifies  it,  and  renders  it  invincible. 

Permit  me.  Sir,  to  add  another  circumstance  in  our  colonies, 
which  contributes  no  mean  part  towards  the  growth  and  effect 
of  this  un tractable  spirit.     I  mean  their  education.     In  no 


BURKE  79 

country,  perhaps,  in  the  world  is  the  law  so  general  a  study. 
The  profession  itself  is  numerous  and  powerful ;  and  in  most 
provinces  it  takes  the  lead.  The  greater  number  of  the  deputies 
sent  to  Congress  were  lawyers.  But  all  who  read,  and  most 
do  read,  endeavour  to  obtain  some  smattering  in  that  science. 
I  have  been  told  by  an  eminent  bookseller,  that  in  no  branch  of 
his  business,  after  tracts  of  popular  devotion,  were  so  many 
books  as  those  on  the  law  exported  to  the  Plantations.  The 
colonists  have  now  fallen  into  the  way  of  printing  them  for 
their  own  use.  I  hear  that  they  have  sold  nearly  as  many  of 
Blackstone's  Commentaries  in  America  as  in  England.  General 
Gages  marks  out  this  disposition  very  particularly  in  a  letter 
on  your  table.  He  states  that  all  the  people  in  his  govern- 
ment are  lawyers,  or  smatterers  in  law  ;  and  that  in  Boston 
they  have  been  enabled,  by  successful  chicane,  wholly  to  evade 
many  parts  of  one  of  your  capital  penal  constitutions.  The 
smartness  of  debate  will  say  that  this  knowledge  ought  to  teach 
them  more  clearly  the  rights  of  legislature,  their  obligations 
to  obedience,  and  the  penalties  of  rebellion.  All  this  is  mighty 
well.  But  my  honourable  and  learned  friend  [the  Attorney- 
General,  afterwards  Lord  Thurlow]  on  the  floor,  who  con- 
descends to  mark  what  I  say  for  animadversion,  will  disdain 
that  ground.  He  has  heard,  as  well  as  I,  that  when  great 
honours  and  great  emoluments  do  not  win  over  this  knowledge 
to  the  service  of  the  State  it  is  a  formidable  adversary  to 
government.  If  the  spirit  be  not  tamed  and  broken  by  these 
happy  methods,  it  is  stubborn  and  litigious.  Aheunt  studia  in 
mores.  This  study  renders  men  acute,  inquisitive,  dexterous, 
prompt  in  attack,  ready  in  defence,  full  of  resources.  In  other 
countries,  the  people,  more  simple  and  of  a  less  mercurial  cast, 
judge  of  an  ill  principle  in  government  only  by  an  actual 
grievance.  Here  they  anticipate  the  evil,  and  judge  of  the 
pressure  of  the  grievance  by  the  badness  of  the  principle. 
They  augur  misgovemment  at  a  distance  ;  and  snuff  the 
approach  of  tyranny  in  every  tainted  breeze. 

The  last  cause  of  this  disobedient  spirit  in  the  colonies  is 
hardly  less  powerful  than  the  rest,  as  it  is  not  merely  moral, 
but  laid  deep  in  the  natural  constitution  of  things.  Three 
thousand  miles  of  ocean  lie  between  you  and  them.  No  con- 
trivance can  prevent  the  effect  of  this  distance  in  weakening 
government.     Seas  roll  and  months  pass  between  the  order 


80  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

and  the  execution  ;  and  the  want  of  a  speedy  explanation  of 
a  single  point  is  enough  to  defeat  the  whole  system.  You  have, 
indeed,  "  winged  ministers  "  of  vengeance,  who  carry  your 
bolts  in  their  pouches  to  the  remotest  verge  of  the  sea.  But 
there  a  power  steps  in  that  limits  the  arrogance  of  raging  pas- 
sion and  furious  elements,  and  says  :  "So  far  shalt  thou  go, 
and  no  further."  Who  are  you,  that  should  fret  and  rage,  and 
bite  the  chains  of  nature  ?  Nothing  worse  happens  to  you  than 
does  to  all  nations  who  have  extensive  empires  ;  and  it  happens 
in  all  the  forms  into  which  empire  can  be  thrown.  In  large 
bodies  the  circulation  of  power  must  be  less  vigorous  at  the 
extremities.  Nature  has  said  it.  The  Turk  cannot  govern 
Egypt  and  Arabia  and  Koordistan  as  he  governs  Thrace  : 
nor  has  he  the  same  dominion  in  Crimea  and  Algiers  which  he 
has  at  Broosa  and  Smyrna.  Despotism  itself  is  obliged  to 
truck  and  huckster.  The  Sultan  gets  such  obedience  as  he 
can.  He  governs  with  a  loose  rein,  that  he  may  govern  at  all ; 
and  the  whole  of  the  force  and  vigour  of  his  authority  in  his 
centre  is  derived  from  a  prudent  relaxation  in  all  his  borders. 
Spain,  in  her  provinces,  is,  perhaps,  not  so  well  obeyed  as  you 
are  in  yours.  She  complies,  too  ;  she  submits  ;  she  watches 
times.  This  is  the  immutable  condition,  the  eternal  law  of 
extensive  and  detached  Empire. 

Then,  sir,  from  these  six  capital  sources  of  descent,  of  forms 
of  government,  of  religion  in  the  northern  provinces,  of  manners 
in  the  southern,  of  education,  of  the  remoteness  of  situation 
from  the  first  mover  of  government — from  all  these  causes  a 
fierce  spirit  of  liberty  has  grown  up.  It  has  grown  with  the 
growth  of  the  people  in  your  colonies,  and  increased  with  the 
increase  of  their  wealth  ;  a  spirit  that,  unhappily  meeting 
with  an  exercise  of  power  in  England,  which,  however  lawful, 
is  not  reconcilable  to  any  ideas  of  liberty,  much  less  with  theirs, 
has  kindled  this  flame  that  is  ready  to  consume  us. 

I  do  not  mean  to  commend  either  the  spirit  in  this  excess 
or  the  moral  causes  which  produce  it.  Perhaps  a  more  smooth 
and  accommodating  spirit  of  freedom  in  them  would  be  more 
acceptable  to  us.  Perhaps  ideas  of  liberty  might  be  desired 
more  reconcilable  with  an  arbitrary  and  boundless  authority. 
Perhaps  we  might  wish  the  colonists  to  be  persuaded  that  their 
liberty  is  more  secure  when  held  in  trust  for  them  by  us,  as 
guardians  during  a  perpetual  minority,  than  with  any  part  of 


BURKE  81 

it  in  their  own  hands.     But  the  question  is  not  whether  their 
spirit  deserves  praise  or  blame.     What,  in  the  name  of  God, 
shall  we  do  with  it  ?     You  have  before  you  the  object,  such  as 
it  is,  with  all  its  glories,  with  all  its  imperfections  on  its  head. 
You  see  the  magnitude,  the  importance,  the  temper,  the  habits, 
the  disorders.     By  all  these  considerations  we  are  strongly 
urged  to  determine  something  concerning  it.     We  are  called 
upon  to  fix  some  rule  and  line  for  our  future  conduct,  which 
may  give  a  little  stability  to  our  politics,  and  prevent  the 
return  of  such  unhappy  deliberations  as  the  present.     Every 
such  return  will  bring  the  matter  before  us  in  a  still  more 
untractable    form.     For,    what    astonishing    and    incredible 
things  have  we  not  seen  already  ?     What  monsters  have  not 
been  generated  from  this  unnatural  contention  ?     While  every 
principle  of  authority  and  resistance  has  been  pushed  upon 
both  sides,  so  far  as  it  would  go,  there  is  nothing  so  solid  and 
certain,  either  in  reasoning  or  in  practice,  that  it  has  not  been 
shaken.     Until  very  lately,  all  authority  in  America  seemed 
to  be  nothing  but  an  emanation  from  yours.     Even  the  popular 
part  of  the  colony  constitution  derived  all  its  activity,  and  its 
first  vital  movement,  from  the  pleasure  of  the  Crown.     We 
thought,  sir,  that  the  utmost  which  the  discontented  colonists 
could  do  was  to  disturb  authority.     We  never  dreamed  they 
could  of  themselves  supply  it,  knowing  in  general  what  an 
operose  business  it  is  to  estabhsh  a  government  absolutely  new. 
But  having,  for  our  purposes  in  this  contention,  resolved  that 
none  but  an  obedient  assembly  should  sit,  the  humours  of  the 
people  there,  finding  all  passage  through  the  legal  channel 
stopped,  with  great  violence  broke  out  another  way.     Some 
provinces  have  tried  their  experiment,  as  we  have  tried  ours  ; 
and  theirs  has  succeeded.     They  have  formed  a  government 
sufficient  for  its  purposes,  without  the  bustle  of  a  revolution, 
or  the  troublesome  formahty  of  an  election.     Evident  neces- 
sity and  tacit  consent  have  done  the  business  in  an  instant. 
So  well  they  have  done  it,  that  Lord  Dunmore  (the  account  is 
among  the  fragments  on  your  table)  tells  you,  that  the  new 
institution  is  infinitely  better  obeyed  than  the  ancient  govern- 
ment ever  was  in  its  most  fortunate  periods.     Obedience  is 
what  makes  government,  and  not  the  names  by  which  it  is 
called  ;   not  the  name  of  governor,  as  formerly,  or  committee, 
as  at  present.     This  new  government  has  originated  directly 

6 — (ai7o) 


S2  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

from  the  people,  and  was  not  transmitted  through  any  of  the 
ordinary  artificial  media  of  a  positive  constitution.  It  was  not 
a  manufacture  ready  formed,  and  transmitted  to  them  in  that 
condition  from  England.  The  evil  arising  from  hence  is  this  : 
that  the  colonists  having  once  found  the  possibility  of  enjoying 
the  advantages  of  order  in  the  midst  of  a  struggle  for  liberty, 
such  struggles  will  not  henceforward  seem  so  terrible  to  the 
settled  and  sober  part  of  mankind  as  they  had  appeared  before 
the  trial. 

Pursuing  the  same  plan  of  punishing  by  the  denial  of  the 
exercise  of  government  to  still  greater  lengths,  we  wholly 
abrogated  the  ancient  government  of  Massachusetts.  We  were 
confident  that  the  first  feeling,  if  not  the  very  prospect  of 
anarchy,  would  instantly  enforce  a  complete  submission.  The 
experiment  was  tried.  A  new,  strange,  unexpected  face  of 
things  appeared.  Anarchy  is  found  tolerable.  A  vast  pro- 
vince has  now  subsisted,  and  subsisted  in  a  considerable  degree 
of  health  and  vigour,  for  near  a  twelvemonth,  without  governor, 
without  public  council,  without  judges,  without  executive 
magistrates.  How  long  it  will  continue  in  this  state,  or  what- 
may  arise  out  of  this  unheard-of  situation,  how  can  the  wisest 
of  us  conjecture  ?  Our  late  experience  has  taught  us  that 
many  of  these  fundamental  principles,  formerly  believed  infal- 
lible, are  either  not  of  the  importance  they  were  imagined  to  be, 
or  that  we  have  not  at  all  adverted  to  some  other  far  more 
important  and  far  more  powerful  principles,  which  entirely 
overrule  those  we  had  considered  as  omnipotent.  I  am  much 
against  any  farther  experiments  which  tend  to  put  to  the  proof 
any  more  of  these  allowed  opinions,  which  contribute  so  much 
to  the  public  tranquilhty.  In  effect,  we  suffer  as  much  at 
home  by  this  loosening  of  all  ties,  and  this  concussion  of  aU 
established  opinions,  as  we  do  abroad.  For,  in  order  to  prove 
that  the  Americans  have  no  right  to  their  liberties,  we  are  every 
day  endeavouring  to  subvert  the  maxims  which  preserve  the 
whole  spirit  of  our  own.  To  prove  that  the  Americans  ought 
not  to  be  free,  we  are  obliged  to  depreciate  the  value  of  freedom 
itself ;  and  we  never  seem  to  gain  a  paltry  advantage  over 
them  in  debate  without  attacking  some  of  those  principles 
or  deriding  some  of  those  feelings  for  which  our  ancestors 
have  shed  their  blood. 

But,  sir,  in  wishing  to  put  an  end  to  pernicious  experiments. 


BURKE  83 

I  do  not  mean  to  preclude  the  fullest  inquiry.  Far  from  it. 
Far  from  deciding  on  a  sudden  or  partial  view,  I  would  patiently 
go  round  and  round  the  subject,  and  survey  it  minutely  in 
every  possible  aspect.  Sir,  if  I  were  capable  of  engaging  you 
to  an  equal  attention,  I  would  state  that,  as  far  as  I  am  capable 
of  discerning,  there  are  but  three  ways  of  proceeding  relative 
to  this  stubborn  spirit  which  prevails  in  your  colonies  and 
disturbs  your  government.  These  are,  to  change  that  spirit, 
as  inconvenient,  by  removing  the  causes  ;  '  to  prosecute  it  as 
criminal ;  or  to  comply  with  it  as  necessary.  I  would  not  be 
guilty  of  an  imperfect  enumeration.  I  can  think  of  but  these 
three.  Another  has,  indeed,  been  started — that  of  giving  up 
the  colonies  ;  but  it  met  so  shght  a  reception  that  I  do  not 
think  myself  obliged  to  dwell  a  great  while  upon  it.  It  is 
nothing  but  a  httle  sally  of  anger,  like  the  frowardness  of 
peevish  children,  who,  when  they  cannot  get  all  they  would 
have,  are  resolved  to  take  nothing. 

The  first  of  these  plans,  to  change  the  spirit,  as  inconvenient, 
by  removing  the  causes,  I  think  is  the  most  like  a  systematic 
proceeding.  It  is  radical  in  its  principle,  but  it  is  attended  with 
great  difficulties,  some  of  them  little  short,  as  I  conceive,  of 
impossibilities.  This  will  appear  by  examining  into  the  plans 
which  have  been  proposed. 

As  the  growing  population  of  the  colonies  is  evidently  one 
cause  of  their  resistance,  it  was  last  session  mentioned  in  both 
Houses  by  men  of  weight,  and  received  not  without  applause, 
that,  in  order  to  check  this  evil,  it  would  be  proper  for  the 
Crown  to  make  no  farther  grants  of  land.  But  to  this  scheme 
there  are  two  objections.  The  first,  that  there  is  already  so 
much  unsettled  land  in  private  hands  as  to  afford  room  for  an 
immense  future  population,  although  the  Crown  not  only 
withheld  its  grants,  but  annihilated  its  soil.  If  this  be  the  case, 
then  the  only  effect  of  this  avarice  of  desolation,  this  hoarding 
of  a  royal  wilderness,  would  be  to  raise  the  value  of  the  pos- 
sessions in  the  hands  of  the  great  private  monopoHsts  without 
any  adequate  check  to  the  growing  and  alarming  mischief 
of  population. 

But  if  you  stopped  your  grants,  what  would  be  the  conse- 
quence ?  The  people  would  occupy  without  grants.  They 
have  already  so  occupied  in  many  places.  You  cannot  station 
garrisons  in  every  part   of  these   deserts.     If  you  drive  the 


84  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

people  from  one  place,  they  will  carry  on  their  annual  tillage 
and  remove  with  their  flocks  and  herds  to  another.  Many  of 
the  people  in  the  back  settlements  are  already  little  attached 
to  particular  situations.  Already  they  have  topped  the  Appala- 
chian Mountains.  From  thence  they  behold  before  them  an 
immense  plain,  one  vast,  rich,  level  meadow — a  square  of  five 
hundred  miles.  Over  this  they  wander  without  a  possibility 
of  restraint.  They  would  change  their  manners  with  the  habits 
of  their  life  ;  would  soon  forget  a  government  by  which  they 
were  disowned ;  would  become  hordes  of  English  Tartars ;  and, 
pouring  down  upon  your  unfortified  frontiers  a  fierce  and 
irresistible  cavalry,  become  masters  of  your  governors  and 
your  counsellors,  your  collectors  and  controllers,  and  of  all  the 
slaves  that  adhered  to  them.  Such  would,  and  in  no  long  time 
must  be,  the  effect  of  attempting  to  forbid  as  a  crime,  and  to 
suppress  as  an  evil,  the  command  and  blessing  of  Providence, 
"  Increase  and  multiply."  Such  would  be  the  happy  result 
of  an  endeavour  to  keep  as  a  lair  of  wild  beasts  that  earth  which 
God,  by  an  express  charter,  has  given  to  the  children  of  men. 
Far  different,  and  surely  much  wiser,  has  been  our  policy 
hitherto.  Hitherto  we  have  invited  our  people,  by  every  kind 
of  bounty,  to  fixed  establishments.  We  have  invited  the 
husbandman  to  look  to  authority  for  his  title.  We  have  taught 
him  piously  to  believe  in  the  mysterious  virtue  of  wax  and 
parchment.  We  have  thrown  each  tract  of  land,  as  it  was 
peopled,  into  districts,  that  the  ruling  power  should  never  be 
wholly  out  of  sight.  We  have  settled  all  we  could,  and  we  have 
carefully  attended  every  settlement  with  government. 

Adhering,  sir,  as  I  do,  to  this  policy,  as  well  as  for  the  reasons 
I  have  just  given,  I  think  this  new  project  of  hedging  in 
population  to  be  neither  prudent  nor  practicable. 

To  impoverish  the  colonies  in  general,  and  in  particular  to 
arrest  the  noble  course  of  their  marine  enterprises,  would  be  a 
more  easy  task.  I  freely  confess  it.  We  have  shown  a  dis- 
position to  a  system  of  this  kind  ;  a  disposition  even  to  con- 
tinue the  restraint  after  the  offence,  looking  on  ourselves  as 
rivals  to  our  colonies,  and  persuaded  that  of  course  we  must 
gain  all  that  they  shall  lose.  Much  mischief  we  may  certainly 
do.  The  power  inadequate  to  all  other  things  is  often  more 
than  sufficient  for  this.  I  do  not  look  on  the  direct  and 
immediate  power  of  the  colonies  to  resist  our  violence  as  very 


BURKE  85 

formidable.  In  this,  however,  I  may  be  mistaken.  But  when 
I  consider  that  we  have  colonies  for  no  purpose  but  to  be 
serviceable  to  us,  it  seems  to  my  poor  understanding  a  little 
preposterous  to  make  them  unserviceable  in  order  to  keep  them 
obedient.  It  is,  in  truth,  nothing  more  than  the  old,  and, 
as  I  thought,  exploded  problem  of  tyranny,  which  proposes  to 
beggar  its  subject  into  submission.  But,  remember,  when  you 
have  completed  your  system  of  impoverishment,  that  nature 
stiU  proceeds  in  her  ordinary  course  ;  that  discontent  will 
increase  with  misery  ;  and  that  there  are  critical  moments  in 
the  fortunes  of  all  states  when  they  who  are  too  weak  to  con- 
tribute to  your  prosperity  may  be  strong  enough  to  complete 
your  ruin.     "  Spoliatis  arma  super  sunt  ^ 

The  temper  and  character  which  prevail  in  our  colonies  are, 
I  am  afraid,  unalterable  by  any  human  art.  We  cannot,  I 
fear,  falsify  the  pedigree  of  this  fierce  people,  and  persuade 
them  that  they  are  not  sprung  from  a  nation  in  whose  veins 
the  blood  of  freedom  circulates.  The  language  in  which  they 
would  hear  you  tell  them  this  tale  would  detect  the  imposition. 
Your  speech  would  betray  you.  An  Englishman  is  the 
unfit  test  person  on  earth  to  argue  another  Englishman  into 
slavery. 

I  think  it  is  nearly  as  little  in  our  power  to  change  their 
republican  religion  as  their  free  descent ;  or  to  substitute  the 
Roman  Catholic  as  a  penalty,  or  the  Church  of  England  as  an 
improvement.  The  mode  of  inquisition  and  dragooning  is 
going  out  of  fashion  in  the  old  world,  and  I  should  not  confide 
much  to  their  efficacy  in  the  new.  The  education  of  the 
Americans  is  also  on  the  same  unalterable  bottom  with  their 
religion.  You  cannot  persuade  them  to  bum  their  books 
of  curious  science  ;  to  banish  their  lawyers  from  their  courts 
of  law  ;  or  to  quench  the  lights  of  their  assemblies,  by  refusing 
to  choose  those  persons  who  are  best  read  in  their  privileges. 
It  would  be  no  less  impracticable  to  think  of  wholly  annihilating 
the  popular  assemblies  in  which  these  lawyers  sit.  The  army, 
by  which  we  must  govern  in  their  place,  would  be  far  more 
chargeable  to  us  ;  not  quite  so  effectual ;  and  perhaps,  in  the 
end,  full  as  difficult  to  be  kept  in  obedience. 

With  regard  to  the  high  aristocratic  spirit  of  Virginia  and 
the  southern  colonies,  it  has  been  proposed,  I  know,  to  reduce 
it,  by  declaring  a  general  enfranchisement  of  their  slaves. 


86  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

This  project  has  had  its  advocates  and  panegyrists,  yet  I  never 
could  argue  myself  into  an  opinion  of  it.  Slaves  are  often 
much  attached  to  their  masters.  A  general  wild  offer  of  liberty 
would  not  always  be  accepted.  History  furnishes  few  instances 
of  it.  It  is  sometimes  as  hard  to  persuade  slaves  to  be  free 
as  it  is  to  compel  freemen  to  be  slaves  ;  and  in  this  auspicious 
scheme  we  should  have  both  these  pleasing  tasks  on  our  hands 
at  once.  But  when  we  talk  of  enfranchisement,  do  we  not 
perceive  that  the  American  master  may  enfranchise  too,  and 
arm  servile  hands  in  defence  of  freedom  ?  A  measure  to  which 
other  people  have  had  recourse  more  than  once,  and  not  without 
success,  in  a  desperate  situation  of  their  affairs. 

Slaves  as  these  unfortunate  black  people  are,  and  dull  as 
all  men  are  from  slavery,  must  they  not  a  little  suspect  the 
offer  of  freedom  from  that  very  nation  which  has  sold  them  to 
their  present  masters  ?  From  that  nation,  one  of  whose 
causes  of  quarrel  with  those  masters  is  their  refusal  to  deal  any 
more  in  that  inhuman  traffic  ?  An  offer  of  freedom  from  Eng- 
land would  come  rather  oddly,  shipped  to  them  in  an  African 
vessel,  which  is  refused  an  entry  into  the  ports  of  Virginia 
or  Carolina,  with  a  cargo  of  three  hundred  Angola  negroes. 
It  would  be  curious  to  see  the  Guinea  captain  attempt  at  the 
same  instant  to  publish  his  proclamation  of  liberty  and  to 
advertise  the  sale  of  slaves. 

But  let  us  suppose  all  these  moral  difficulties  got  over.  The 
ocean  remains.  You  cannot  pump  this  dry  ;  and  as  long  as  it 
continues  in  its  present  bed,  so  long  all  the  causes  which 
weaken  authority  by  distance  will  continue. 

"  Ye  gods  !    annihilate  but  space  and  time, 
And  make  two  lovers  happy  !  " 

was  a  pious  and  passionate  prayer,  but  just  as  reasonable  as 
many  of  these  serious  wishes  of  very  grave  and  solemn 
politicians. 

If  then,  sir,  it  seems  almost  desperate  to  think  of  any 
alternative  course  for  changing  the  moral  causes  (and  not  quite 
easy  to  remove  the  natural)  which  produce  the  prejudices 
irreconcilable  to  the  late  exercise  of  our  authority,  but  that 
the  spirit  infallibly  will  continue,  and,  continuing,  will  produce 
such  effects  as  now  embarrass  us,  the  second  mode  under 
consideration  is  to  prosecute  that  spirit  in  its  overt  acts  as 
criminal. 


RURKE  87 

At  this  proposition  I  must  pause  a  moment,  The  thing  seems 
a  great  deal  too  big  for  my  ideas  of  jurisprudence.  It  should 
seem,  to  my  way  of  conceiving  such  matters,  that  there  is  a 
very  wide  difference  in  reason  and  policy  between  the  mode 
of  proceeding  on  the  irregular  conduct  of  scattered  individuals, 
or  even  of  bands  of  men,  who  disturb  order  within  the  State, 
and  the  civil  dissensions  which  may,  from  time  to  time,  on 
great  questions,  agitate  the  several  communities  which  com- 
pose a  great  empire.  It  looks  to  me  to  be  narrow  and  pedantic 
to  apply  the  ordinary  ideas  of  criminal  justice  to  this  great 
public  contest.  I  do  not  know  the  method  of  drawing  up  an 
indictment  against  a  whole  people.  I  cannot  insult  and  ridicule 
the  feelings  of  millions  of  my  fellow-creatures,  as  Sir  Edward 
Coke  insulted  one  excellent  individual  at  the  bar.  I  am  not 
ripe  to  pass  sentence  on  the  gravest  public  bodies,  intrusted 
with  magistracies  of  great  authority  and  dignity,  and  charged 
with  the  safety  of  their  fellow-citizens  upon  the  very  same 
title  that  I  am.  I  really  think  that,  for  wise  men,  this  is  not 
judicious  ;  for  sober  men,  not  decent  ;  for  minds  tinctured 
with  humanity,  not  mild  and  merciful. 

Perhaps,  sir,  I  am  mistaken  in  my  idea  of  an  empire,  as 
distinguished  from  a  single  state  or  kingdom.  But  my  idea 
of  it  is  this  :  that  an  empire  is  the  aggregate  of  many  states, 
under  one  common  head,  whether  this  head  be  a  monarch  or  a 
presiding  republic.  It  does,  in  such  constitutions,  frequently 
happen  (and  nothing  but  the  dismal,  cold,  dead  uniformity 
of  servitude  can  prevent  its  happening)  that  the  subordinate 
parts  have  many  local  privileges  and  immunities.  Between 
these  privileges  and  the  supreme  common  authority,  the  line 
may  be  extremely  nice.  Of  course,  disputes — often,  too,  very 
bitter  disputes,  and  much  ill  blood,  wiU  arise.  But,  though 
every  privilege  is  an  exemption  in  the  case,  from  the  ordinary 
exercise  of  the  supreme  authority,  it  is  no  denial  of  it.  The 
claim  of  a  privilege  seems  rather,  ex  vi  termini,  to  imply  a 
superior  power  ;  for  to  talk  of  the  privileges  of  a  state  or  of  a 
person  who  has  no  superior,  is  hardly  any  better  than  speaking 
nonsense.  Now,  in  such  unfortunate  quarrels  among  the 
component  parts  of  a  great  political  union  of  communities, 
I  can  scarcely  conceive  anything  more  completely  imprudent 
than  for  the  head  of  the  empire  to  insist  that,  if  any  privilege 
is  pleaded  against  his  will  or  his  acts,  that  his  whole  authority 


88  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

is  denied  ;  instantly  to  proclaim  rebellion,  to  beat  to  arms, 
and  to  put  the  offending  provinces  under  the  ban.  Will  not 
this,  sir,  very  soon  teach  the  provinces  to  make  no  distinctions 
on  their  part  ?  Will  it  not  teach  them  that  the  government 
against  which  a  claim  of  liberty  is  tantamount  to  high  treason, 
is  a  government  to  which  submission  is  equivalent  to  slavery  ? 
It  may  not  always  be  quite  convenient  to  impress  dependent 
communities  with  such  an  idea. 

We  are,  indeed,  in  all  disputes  with  the  colonies,  by  the 
necessity  of  things,  the  judge.  It  is  true,  sir  ;  but  I  confess 
that  the  character  of  judge  in  my  own  cause  is  a  thing  that 
frightens  me.  Instead  of  filling  me  with  pride,  I  am  exceed- 
ingly humbled  by  it.  I  cannot  proceed  with  a  stern,  assured, 
judicial  confidence  until  I  find  myself  in  something  more  like 
a  judicial  character.  I  must  have  these  hesitations  as  long  as 
I  am  compelled  to  recollect  that,  in  my  little  reading  upon  such 
contests  as  these,  the  sense  of  mankind  has  at  least  as  often 
decided  against  the  superior  as  the  subordinate  power.  Sir, 
let  me  add,  too,  that  the  opinion  of  my  having  some  abstract 
right  in  my  favour  would  not  put  me  much  at  my  ease  in 
passing  sentence,  unless  I  could  be  sure  that  there  were  no 
rights  which,  in  their  exercise  under  certain  circumstances,  were 
not  the  most  odious  of  all  wrongs,  and  the  most  vexatious  of  all 
injustice.  Sir,  these  considerations  have  great  weight  with  me 
when  I  find  things  so  circumstanced  that  I  see  the  same  party 
at  once  a  civil  litigant  against  me  in  point  of  right  and  a  culprit 
before  me  ;  while  I  sit  as  criminal  judge  on  acts  of  his  whose 
moral  quality  is  to  be  decided  on  upon  the  merits  of  that  very 
litigation.  Men  are  every  now  and  then  put,  by  the  com- 
plexity of  human  affairs,  into  strange  situations  ;  but  justice 
is  the  same,  let  the  judge  be  in  what  situation  he  will. 

There  is,  sir,  also  a  circumstance  which  convinces  me  that 
this  mode  of  criminal  proceeding  is  not,  at  least  in  the  present 
stage  of  our  contest,  altogether  expedient,  which  is  nothing 
less  than  the  conduct  of  those  very  persons  who  have  seemed 
to  adopt  that  mode  by  lately  declaring  a  rebellion  in  Massa- 
chusetts Bay,  as  they  had  formerly  addressed  to  have  trai- 
tors brought  hither,  under  an  Act  of  Henry  the  Eighth,  for 
trial.  For,  though  rebellion  is  declared,  it  is  not  proceeded 
against  as  such  ;  nor  have  any  steps  been  taken  toward  the 
apprehension  or  conviction  of  any  individual  offender,  either 


BURKE  89 

on  our  late  or  our  former  address  ;  but  modes  of  public  coercion 
have  been  adopted,  and  such  as  have  much  more  resemblance 
to  a  sort  of  qualified  hostility  toward  an  independent  power 
than  the  punishment  of  rebellious  subjects.  All  this  seems 
rather  inconsistent ;  but  it  shows  how  difficult  it  is  to  apply 
these  judicial  ideas  to  our  present  case. 

In  this  situation,  let  us  seriously  and  coolly  ponder.  What 
is  it  we  have  got  by  all  our  menaces,  which  have  been  many 
and  ferocious  ?  What  advantage  have  we  derived  from  the 
penal  laws  we  have  passed,  and  which,  for  the  time,  have  been 
severe  and  numerous  ?  What  advances  have  we  made  toward 
our  object  by  the  sending  of  a  force  which,  by  land  and  sea, 
is  no  contemptible  strength  ?  Has  the  disorder  abated  ? 
Nothing  less.  When  I  see  things  in  this  situation,  after  such 
confident  hopes,  bold  promises,  and  active  exertions,  I  cannot 
for  my  life  avoid  a  suspicion  that  the  plan  itself  is  not  correctly 
right. 

If,  then,  the  removal  of  the  causes  of  this  spirit  of  American 
liberty  be  for  the  greater  part,  or  rather  entirely,  impracticable  ; 
if  the  ideas  of  criminal  process  be  inapplicable,  or,  if  applicable, 
are  in  the  highest  degree  inexpedient,  what  way  yet  remains  ? 
No  way  is  open  but  the  third  and  last — to  comply  with  the 
American  spirit  as  necessary,  or,  if  you  please,  to  submit  to  it 
as  a  necessary  evil. 

If  we  adopt  this  mode,  if  we  mean  to  conciliate  and  concede, 
let  us  see,  of  what  nature  the  concessions  ought  to  be.  To 
ascertain  the  nature  of  our  concession  we  must  look  at  their 
complaint.  The  colonies  complain  that  they  have  not  the 
characteristic  mark  and  seal  of  British  freedom.  They  com- 
plain that  they  are  taxed  in  Parliament  in  which  they  are  not 
represented.  If  you  mean  to  satisfy  them  at  aU,  you  must 
satisfy  them  with  regard  to  this  complaint.  If  you  mean  to 
please  any  people,  you  must  give  them  the  boon  which  they 
ask  ;  not  what  you  may  think  better  for  them,  but  of  a  kind 
totally  different.  Such  an  act  may  be  a  wise  regulation,  but 
it  is  no  concession,  whereas  our  present  theme  is  the  mode  of 
giving  satisfaction. 

Sir,  I  think  you  must  perceive  that  I  am  resolved  this  day  to 
have  nothing  at  all  to  do  with  the  question  of  the  right  of 
taxation.  Some  gentlemen  startle,  but  it  is  true.  I  put  it 
totally  out  of  the  question.     It  is  less  than  nothing  in  my 


90  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

consideration.  I  do  not,  indeed,  wonder,  nor  will  you,  sir, 
that  gentlemen  of  profound  learning  are  fond  of  displaying 
it  on  this  profound  subject.  But  my  consideration  is  narrow, 
confined,  and  wholly  limited  to  the  policy  of  the  question.  I 
do  not  examine  whether  the  giving  away  a  man's  money  be  a 
power  excepted  and  reserved  out  of  the  general  trust  of  govern- 
ment, and  how  far  all  mankind,  in  all  forms  of  polity,  are 
entitled  to  an  exercise  of  that  right  by  the  charter  of  nature  ; 
or  whether,  on  the  contrary,  a  right  of  taxation  is  necessarily 
involved  in  the  general  principle  of  legislation,  and  inseparable 
from  the  ordinary  supreme  power.  These  are  deep  questions, 
where  great  names  militate  against  each  other  ;  where  reason 
is  perplexed  ;  and  an  appeal  to  authorities  only  thickens  the 
confusion  ;  for  high  and  reverend  authorities  lift  up  their 
heads  on  both  sides,  and  there  is  no  sure  footing  in  the  middle. 
The  point  is 

"  That  Sorbornian  bog 
Betwixt  Pamietta  and  Mount  Cassius  old, 
Where  armies  whole  have  sunk." 

I  do  not  intend  to  be  overwhelmed  in  this  bog,  though  in  such 
respectable  company.  The  question  with  me  is,  not  whether 
you  have  a  right  to  render  your  people  miserable,  but  whether 
it  is  not  your  interest  to  make  them  happy.  It  is  not  what  a 
lawyer  tells  me  I  may  do,  but  what  humanity,  reason,  and 
justice  tell  me  I  ought  to  do.  Is  a  politic  act  the  worse  for 
being  a  generous  one  ?  Is  no  concession  proper  but  that  which 
is  made  from  your  want  of  right  to  keep  what  you  grant  ? 
Or  does  it  lessen  the  grace  or  dignity  of  relaxing  in  the  exercise 
of  an  odious  claim,  because  you  have  your  evidence-room  full 
of  titles,  and  your  magazines  stuffed  with  arms  to  enforce  them? 
What  signify"  all  those  titles  and  all  those  arms  ?  Of  what 
avail  are  they  when  the  reason  of  the  thing  tells  me  that  the 
assertion  of  my  title  is  the  loss  of  my  suit,  and  that  I  could  do 
nothing  but  wound  myself  by  the  use  of  my  own  weapons  ? 

Such  is  steadfastly  my  opinion  of  the  absolute  necessity 
of  keeping  up  the  concord  of  this  empire  by  a  unity  of  spirit, 
though  in  a  diversity  of  operations,  that,  if  I  were  sure  the 
colonists  had,  at  their  leaving  this  country,  sealed  a  regular 
compact  of  servitude  ;  they  had  solemnly  abjured  all  the 
rights  of  citizens  ;  that  they  had  made  a  vow  to  renounce  all 
ideas  of  liberty  for  them  and  their  posterity  to  all  generations, 


BURKE  91 

yet  I  should  hold  myself  obhged  to  conform  to  the  temper  I 
found  universally  prevalent  in  my  own  day,  and  to  govern 
two  millions  of  men,  impatient  of  servitude,  on  the  principles 
of  freedom.  I  am  not  determining  a  point  of  law.  I  am 
restoring  tranquillity,  and  the  general  character  and  situation 
of  a  people  must  determine  what  sort  of  government  is 
fitted  for  them.  That  point  nothing  else  can  or  ought  to 
determine. 

My  idea,  therefore,  without  considering  whether  we  yield 
as  matter  of  right,  or  grant  as  matter  of  favour,  is  to  admit  the 
people  of  our  colonies  into  an  interest  in  the  Constitution,  and, 
by  recording  that  admission  in  the  journals  of  ParHament, 
to  give  them  as  strong  an  assurance  as  the  nature  of  the  thing 
wiU  admit,  that  we  mean  for  ever  to  adhere  to  that  solenm 
declaration  of  systematic  indulgence. 

Some  years  ago,  the  repeal  of  a  revenue  Act,  upon  its  under- 
stood principle,  might  have  served  to  show  that  we  intended 
an  unconditional  abatement  of  the  exercise  of  a  taxing  power. 
Such  a  measure  was  then  sufficient  to  remove  all  suspicion, 
and  to  give  perfect  content.  But  unfortunate  events,  since 
that  time,  may  make  something  farther  necessary,  and  not 
more  necessary  for  the  satisfaction  of  the  colonies,  than  for 
the  dignity  and  consistency  of  our  own  future  proceedings. 

I  have  taken  a  very  incorrect  measure  of  the  disposition  of 
the  House,  if  this  proposal  in  itself  would  be  received  with 
dislike.  I  think,  sir,  we  have  few  American  financiers.  But 
our  misfortune  is,  we  are  too  acute  ;  we  are  too  exquisite  in 
our  conjectures  of  the  future,  for  men  oppressed  with  such 
great  and  present  evils.  The  more  moderate  among  the 
opposers  of  parliamentary  concessions  freely  confess  that  they 
hope  no  good  from  taxation,  but  they  apprehend  the  colonists 
have  farther  views,  and,  if  this  point  were  conceded,  they  would 
instantly  attack  the  Trade  Laws.  These  gentlemen  are  con- 
vinced that  this  was  the  intention  from  the  beginning,  and  the 
quarrel  of  the  Americans  with  taxation  was  no  more  than  a 
cloak  and  cover  to  this  design.  Such  has  been  the  language 
even  of  a  gentleman  [Mr.  Rice]  of  real  moderation,  and  of  a 
natural  temper  well  adjusted  to  fair  and  equal  government. 
I  am,  however,  sir,  not  a  httle  surprised  at  this  kind  of  dis- 
course, whenever  I  hear  it  ;  and  I  am  the  more  surprised,  on 
account  of  the  arguments  which  I  constantly  find  in  company 


92  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

with  it,  and  which  are  often  urged  from  the  same  mouths  and 
on  the  same  day. 

For  instance,  when  we  allege  that  it  is  against  reason  to  tax 
a  people  under  so  many  restraints  in  trade  as  the  Americans, 
the  noble  lord  in  the  blue  ribbon  shall  tell  you  that  the  restraints 
on  trade  are  futile  and  useless  ;  of  no  advantage  to  us,  and  of 
no  burden  to  those  on  whom  they  are  imposed  ;  that  the 
trade  of  America  is  not  secured  by  the  acts  of  navigation,  but 
by  the  natural  and  irresistible  advantage  of  a  commercial 
preference. 

Such  is  the  merit  of  the  trade  laws  in  this  posture  of  the 
debate.  But  when  strong  internal  circumstances  are  urged 
against  the  taxes ;  when  the  scheme  is  dissected ;  when  experience 
and  the  nature  of  things  are  brought  to  prove,  and  do  prove, 
the  utter  impossibility  of  obtaining  an  effective  revenue  from 
the  colonies  ;  when  these  things  are  pressed,  or  rather  press 
themselves,  so  as  to  drive  the  advocates  of  colony  taxes  to  a 
clear  admission  of  the  futility  of  the  scheme  ;  then,  sir,  the 
sleeping  trade  laws  revive  from  their  trance  and  this  useless 
taxation  is  to  be  kept  sacred,  not  for  its  own  sake,  but  as  a 
counterguard  and  security  of  the  laws  of  trade. 

Then,  sir,  you  keep  up  revenue  laws,  which  are  mischievous, 
in  order  to  preserve  trade  laws  that  are  useless.  Such  is  the 
wisdom  of  our  plan  in  both  its  members.  They  are  separately 
given  up  as  of  no  value,  and  yet  one  is  always  to  be  defended 
for  the  sake  of  the  other.  But  I  cannot  agree  with  the  noble 
lord,  nor  with  the  pamphlet  from  whence  he  seems  to  have 
borrowed  these  ideas,  concerning  the  inutility  of  the  trade  laws ; 
for,  without  idolizing  them,  I  am  sure  they  are  still,  in  many 
ways,  of  great  use  to  us  ;  and  in  former  times,  they  have  been 
of  the  greatest.  They  do  confine,  and  they  do  greatly  narrow 
the  market  for  the  Americans  ;  but  my  perfect  conviction 
of  this  does  not  help  me  in  the  least  to  discern  how  the 
revenue  laws  form  any  security  whatsoever  to  the  commercial 
regulations,  or  that  these  commercial  regulations  are  the  true 
ground  of  the  quarrel,  or  that  the  giving  way  in  any  one 
instance  of  authority  is  to  lose  all  that  may  remain  unconceded. 

One  fact  is  clear  and  indisputable.  The  public  and  avowed 
origin  of  this  quarrel  was  on  taxation.  This  quarrel  has, 
indeed,  brought  on  new  disputes  on  new  questions,  but  certainly 
the  least  bitter,  and  the  fewest  of  all,  on  the  trade  laws.     To 


BURKE  93 

judge  which  of  the  two  be  the  real  radical  cause  of  quarrel, 
we  have  to  see  whether  the  commercial  dispute  did,  in  order 
of  time,  precede  the  dispute  on  taxation.  There  is  not  a 
shadow  of  evidence  for  it.  Next,  to  enable  us  to  judge  whether 
at  this  moment  a  dislike  to  the  trade  laws  be  the  real  cause  of 
quarrel,  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to  put  the  taxes  out  of  the 
question  by  a  repeal.  See  how  the  Americans  act  in  this 
position,  and  then  you  will  be  able  to  discern  correctly  what 
is  the  true  object  of  the  controversy,  or  whether  any  contro- 
versy at  all  will  remain.  Unless  you  consent  to  remove  this 
cause  of  difference,  it  is  impossible,  with  decency,  to  assert 
that  the  dispute  is  not  upon  what  it  is  avowed  to  be.  And  I 
would,  sir,  recommend  to  your  serious  consideration,  whether  it 
be  prudent  to  form  a  rule  pimishing  people,  not  on  their  own 
acts,  but  on  your  conjectures.  Surely  it  is  preposterous 
at  the  very  best.  It  is  not  justifying  your  anger  by  their 
misconduct,  but  it  is  converting  your  ill-will  into,  their 
dehquency. 

But  the  colonies  will  go  farther.  Alas  !  alas  !  when  will 
this  speculating  against  fact  and  reason  end  ?  What  will 
quiet  these  panic  fears  which  we  entertain  of  the  hostile  effect 
of  a  conciliatory  conduct  ?  Is  it  true  that  no  case  can  exist 
in  which  it  is  proper  for  the  Sovereign  to  accede  to  the  desires 
of  his  discontented  subjects  ?  Is  there  anything  pecuhar  in 
this  case  to  make  a  rule  for  itself  ?  Is  aU  authority  of  course 
lost,  when  it  is  not  pushed  to  the  extreme  ?  is  it  a  certain 
maxim,  that  the  fewer  causes  of  dissatisfaction  are  left  by 
government  the  more  the  subject  will  be  inclined  to  resist  and 
rebel  ? 

All  these  objections  being,  in  fact,  no  more  than  suspicions, 
conjectures,  divinations,  formed  in  defiance  of  fact  and  experi- 
ence, they  did  not,  sir,  discourage  me  from  entertaining  the 
idea  of  a  concihatory  concession,  founded  on  the  principles 
which  I  have  first  stated. 

In  forming  a  plan  for  this  purpose,  I  endeavour  to  put 
myself  in  that  frame  of  mind  which  was  the  most  natural  and 
the  most  reasonable,  and  which  was  certainly  the  most  probable 
means  of  securing  me  from  all  error.  I  set  out  with  a  perfect 
distrust  of  my  own  abilities  ;  a  total  renunciation  of  every 
speculation  of  my  own  ;  and  with  a  profound  reverence  for 
the  wisdom  of  our  ancestors,  who  have  left  us  the  inheritance 


94  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

of  so  happy  a  constitution  and  so  flourishing  an  empire,  and, 
what  is  a  thousand  times  more  valuable,  the  treasury  of  the 
maxims  and  principles  which  formed  the  one  and  obtained  the 
other. 

During  the  reigns  of  the  Kings  of  Spain  of  the  Austrian 
family,  whenever  they  were  at  a  loss  in  the  Spanish  councils, 
it  was  common  for  their  statesmen  to  say,  that  they  ought  to 
consult  the  genius  of  Philip  the  Second.  The  genius  of  Philip 
the  Second  might  mislead  them  ;  and  the  issue  of  their  affairs 
showed  that  they  had  not  chosen  the  most  perfect  standard. 
But,  sir,  I  am  sure  that  I  shall  not  be  misled,  when,  in  a  case 
of  constitutional  difficulty,  I  consult  the  genius  of  the  English 
Constitution.  Consulting  at  that  oracle  (it  was  with  all  due 
humility  and  piety) ,  I  found  four  capable  examples  in  a  similar 
case  before  me  :  those  of  Ireland,  Wales,  Chester,  and  Durham. 

Ireland,  before  the  English  conquest,  though  never  governed 
by  a  despotic  power,  had  no  Parhament.  How  far  the  English 
Parliament  itself  was  at  that  time  modelled  according  to  the 
present  form,  is  disputed  among  antiquarians.  But  we  have 
all  the  reason  in  the  world  to  be  assured,  that  a  form  of  Parlia- 
ment, such  as  England  then  enjoyed,  she  instantly  communi- 
cated to  Ireland  ;  and  we  are  equally  sure  that  almost  every 
successive  improvement  in  constitutional  liberty,  as  fast  as  it 
was  made  here,  was  transmitted  thither.  The  feudal  baronage 
and  the  feudal  knighthood,  the  rights  of  our  primitive  constitu- 
tion, were  early  transplanted  into  that  soil,  and  grew  and 
flourished  there.  Magna  Charta,  if  it  did  not  give  us  originally 
the  House  of  Commons,  gave  us,  at  least,  a  House  of  Commons 
of  weight  and  consequence.  But  your  ancestors  did  not 
churlishly  sit  down  alone  to  the  feast  of  Magna  Charta.  Ire- 
land was  made  immediately  a  partaker.  This  benefit  of 
English  laws  and  liberties,  I  confess,  was  not  at  first  extended 
to  all  Ireland.  Mark  the  consequence.  English  authority 
and  English  liberty  had  exactly  the  same  boundaries.  Your 
standard  could  never  be  advanced  an  inch  before  your  privi- 
leges. Sir  John  Davis  shows  beyond  a  doubt,  that  the  refusal 
of  a  general  communication  of  these  rights  was  the  true  cause 
why  Ireland  was  five  hundred  years  in  subduing  ;  and  after 
the  vain  projects  of  a  military  government,  attempted  in  the 
reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  it  was  soon  discovered  that  nothing 
could  make  that  country  English,  in  civility  and  allegiance, 


BURKE  95 

but  your  laws  and  your  forms  of  legislature.  It  was  not  Eng- 
lish arms,  but  the  English  Constitution,  that  conquered  Ireland. 
From  that  time,  Ireland  has  ever  had  a  general  Parliament, 
as  she  had  before  a  partial  Parliament.  You  changed  the 
people  ;  you  altered  the  religion  ;  but  you  never  touched  the 
form  or  the  vital  substance  of  free  government  in  that  king- 
dom. You  deposed  kings  ;  you  restored  them  ;  you  altered 
the  succession  to  theirs,  as  well  as  to  your  own  crown  ;  but  you 
never  altered  their  Constitution  ;  the  principle  of  which  was 
respected  by  usurpation  ;  restored  with  the  restoration  of 
monarchy,  and  established,  I  trust,  forever,  by  the  glorious 
revolution.  This  has  made  Ireland  the  great  and  flourishing 
Kingdom  that  it  is  ;  and  from  a  disgrace  and  a  burden  intoler- 
able to  this  nation,  has  rendered  her  a  principal  part  of  our 
strength  and  ornament.  This  country  cannot  be  said  to  have 
ever  formally  taxed  her.  The  irregular  things  done  in  the 
confusion  of  mighty  troubles,  and  on  the  hinge  of  great  revolu- 
tions, even  if  all  were  done  that  is  said  to  have  been  done, 
form  no  example.  If  they  have  any  effect  in  argument,  they 
make  an  exception  to  prove  the  rule.  None  of  your  own 
liberties  could  stand  a  moment  if  the  casual  deviations  from 
them,  at  such  times,  were  suffered  to  be  used  as  proofs  of  their 
nullity.  By  the  lucrative  amount  of  such  casual  breaches  in 
the  Constitution,  judge  what  the  state  and  fixed  rule  of  supply 
has  been  in  that  Kingdom.  Your  Irish  pensioners  would 
starve,  if  they  had  no  other  fund  to  live  on  than  taxes  granted 
by  English  authority.  Turn  your  eyes  to  those  popular  grants 
from  whence  all  your  great  supplies  are  come,  and  learn  to 
respect  that  only  source  of  public  wealth  in  the  British  Empire. 
My  next  example  is  Wales.  This  country  was  said  to  be 
reduced  by  Henry  the  Third.  It  was  said  more  truly  to  be  so 
by  Edward  the  First.  But  though  then  conquered,  it  was  not 
looked  upon  as  any  part  of  the  realm  of  England.  Its  old 
Constitution,  whatever  that  might  have  been,  was  destroyed, 
and  no  good  one  was  substituted  in  its  place.  The  care  of  that 
tract  was  put  into  the  hands  of  Lords  Marchers — a  form  of 
government  of  a  very  singular  kind  ;  a  strange  heterogeneous 
monster,  something  between  hostility  and  government  ;  per- 
haps it  has  a  sort  of  resemblance,  according  to  the  modes  of 
those  times,  to  that  of  Commander-in-Chief  at  present,  to 
whom  all  civil  power  is  granted  as  secondary.     The  manners 


96  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

of  the  Welsh  nation  followed  the  genius  of  the  government. 
The  people  were  ferocious,  restive,  savage,  and  uncultivated  ; 
sometimes  composed,  never  pacified.  Wales,  within  itself, 
was  in  perpetual  disorder  ;  and  it  kept  the  frontier  of  England 
in  perpetual  alarm.  Benefits  from  it  to  the  State  there  were 
none.  Wales  was  only  known  to  England  by  incursion  and 
invasion. 

Sir,  during  that  state  of  things.  Parliament  was  not  idle. 
They  attempted  to  subdue  the  fierce  spirit  of  the  Welsh  by  all 
sorts  of  rigorous  laws.  They  prohibited  by  statute  the  sending 
all  sorts  of  arms  into  Wales,  as  you  prohibit  by  proclamation 
(with  something  more  of  doubt  on  the  legality)  the  sending 
arms  to  America.  They  disarmed  the  Welsh  by  statute,  as 
you  attempted  (but  still  with  more  questions  on  the  legality) 
to  disarm  New  England  by  an  instruction.  They  made  an  act 
to  drag  offenders  from  Wales  into  England  for  trial,  as  you 
have  done  (but  with  more  hardship)  with  regard  to  America. 
By  another  act,  where  one  of  the  parties  was  an  Englishman, 
they  ordained  that  his  trial  should  be  always  by  English. 
They  made  acts  to  restrain  trade,  as  you  do  ;  and  they  pre- 
vented the  Welsh  from  the  use  of  fairs  and  markets,  as  you  do 
the  Americans  from  fisheries  and  foreign  ports.  In  short, 
when  the  statute-book  was  not  quite  so  much  swelled  as  it  is 
now,  you  find  no  less  than  fifteen  acts  of  penal  regulation  on  the 
subject  of  Wales. 

Here  we  rub  our  hands — a  fine  body  of  precedents  for  the 
authority  of  Parliament  and  the  use  of  it — I  admit  it  fully  ; 
and  pray  add  likewise  to  these  precedents,  that  all  the  while 
Wales  rid  this  Kingdom  like  an  incubus ;  that  it  was  an 
unprofitable  and  oppressive  burden  ;  and  that  an  Englishman 
travelling  in  that  country  could  not  go  six  yards  from  the  high 
road  without  being  murdered. 

The  march  of  the  human  mind  is  slow.  Sir,  it  was  not  until 
after  two  hundred  years  discovered  that,  by  an  eternal  law. 
Providence  had  decreed  vexation  to  violence,  and  poverty  to 
rapine.  Your  ancestors  did,  however,  at  length  open  their 
eyes  to  the  ill  husbandry  of  injustice.  They  found  that  the 
tyranny  of  a  free  people  could  of  all  tyrannies  the  least  be 
endured,  and  that  laws  made  against  a  whole  nation  were  not 
the  most  effectual  methods  for  securing  its  obedience.  Accord- 
ingly, in  the  twenty-seventh  year  of  Henry  the  Eighth,  the 


BURKE  97 

course  was  entirely  altered.  With  a  preamble  stating  the 
entire  and  perfect  rights  of  the  Crown  of  England,  it  gave  to  the 
Welsh  all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  English  subjects.  A 
political  order  was  established  ;  the  military  power  gave  way 
to  the  civil ;  the  marches  were  turned  into  counties.  But 
that  a  nation  should  have  a  right  to  English  liberties,  and  yet 
no  share  at  all  in  the  fundamental  security  of  these  liberties, 
the  grant  of  their  own  property,  seemed  a  thing  so  incongruous, 
that,  eight  years  after,  that  is,  in  the  thirty-fifth  of  that  reign, 
a  complete  and  not  ill-proportioned  representation  by  counties 
and  boroughs  was  bestowed  upon  Wales  by  Act  of  Parliament. 
From  that  moment,  as  by  a  charm,  the  tumults  subsided  ; 
obedience  was  restored  ;  peace,  order,  and  civilization  followed 
in  the  train  of  liberty.  When  the  day-star  of  the  English 
Constitution  had  arisen  in  their  hearts,  all  was  harmony 
within  and  without. 

"  Simul  alba  nautis 

Stella  refulsit, 
Defluit  saxis  agitatus  humor  ; 
Concidunt  venti,  fugiuntque  nubes  ; 
Et  minax  (quod  sic  voluere)  ponto 

Unda  recumbit." 

The  very  same  year  the  county  palatine  of  Chester  received 
the  same  relief  from  its  oppressions  and  the  same  remedy  to 
its  disorders.  Before  this  time  Chester  was  Uttle  less  dis- 
tempered than  Wales.  The  inhabitants,  without  rights  them- 
selves, were  the  fittest  to  destroy  the  rights  of  others  ;  and 
from  thence  Richard  the  Second  drew  the  standing  army  of 
archers  with  which  for  a  time  he  oppressed  England.  The 
people  of  Chester  apphed  to  Parliament  in  a  petition  penned 
as  I  shall  read  to  you  : 

"  To  the  King,  our  sovereign  lord,  in  most  humble  wise  sho%\Ti  unto 
your  excellent  Majesty,  the  inhabitants  of  your  Grace's  county  palatine 
of  Chester  ;  that  where  the  said  county  palatine  of  Chester  is  and  hath 
been  always  hitherto  exempt,  excluded  and  separated  out  and  from 
your  high  court  of  Parliament,  to  have  any  knights  and  burgesses 
within  the  said  court  ;  by  reason  whereof  the  said  inhabitants  have 
hitherto  sustained  manifold  disherisons,  losses,  and  damages,  as  well 
in  their  lands,  goods,  and  bodies,  as  in  the  good,  civil,  and  politic 
governance  and  maintenance  of  the  Commonwealth  of  the  said  country. 
(2)  And,  forasmuch  as  the  said  inhabitants  have  always  hitherto  been 
bound  by  the  acts  and  statutes  made  and  ordained  by  your  said  highness 
and  your  most  noble  progenitors,  by  authority  of  the  said  court,  as 

7— (2170) 


98  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

far  forth  as  other  counties,  cities,  and  boroughs  have  been,  that  have 
had  their  Knights  and  burgesses  within  your  said  court  of  ParUament, 
and  yet  have  had  neither  Knight  nor  burgess  there  for  the  said  county 
palatine  ;  the  said  inhabitants,  for  lack  thereof,  have  been  oftentimes 
touched  and  grieved  with  acts  and  statutes  made  within  the  said  court, 
as  well  derogatory  unto  the  most  ancient  jurisdictions,  liberties,  and 
privileges  of  your  said  county  palatine,  as  prejudicial  unto  the  Com- 
monwealth, quietness,  rest,  and  peace  of  your  Grace's  most  bounden 
subjects  inhabiting  within  the  same." 

What  did  Parliament  with  this  audacious  address  ?  Reject 
it  as  a  libel  ?  Treat  it  as  an  affront  to  government  ?  Spurn 
it  as  a  derogation  from  the  rights  of  legislature  ?  Did  they 
toss  it  over  the  table  ?  Did  they  burn  it  by  the  hands  of  the 
common  hangman  ?  They  took  the  petition  of  grievance, 
all  rugged  as  it  was,  without  softening  or  temperment,  un- 
purged  of  the  original  bitterness  and  indignation  of  complaint  ; 
they  made  it  the  very  preamble  to  their  act  of  redress, 
and  consecrated  its  principle  to  all  ages  in  the  sanctuary  of 
legislation. 
•  Here  is  my  third  example  :  It  was  attended  with  the  suc- 
cesses of  the  two  former.  Chester,  civilized  as  well  as  Wales, 
has  demonstrated  that  freedom,  and  not  servitude,  is  the  cure 
of  anarchy,  as  religion,  and  not  atheism,  is  the  true  remedy 
for  superstition.  Sir,  this  pattern  of  Chester  was  followed  in 
the  reign  of  Charles  the  Second  with  regard  to  the  county 
palatine  of  Durham,  which  is  my  fourth  example.  This  county 
had  long  lain  out  of  the  pale  of  free  legislation.  So  scrupu- 
lously was  the  example  of  Chester  followed,  that  the  style  of 
the  preamble  is  nearly  the  same  with  that  of  the  Chester  Act ; 
and  without  affecting  the  abstract  extent  of  the  authority  of 
Parliament,  it  recognizes  the  equity  of  not  suffering  any  con- 
siderable district  in  which  the  British  subjects  may  act  as  a 
body  to  be  taxed  without  their  own  voice  in  the  grant. 

Now,  if  the  doctrines  of  policy  contained  in  these  preambles, 
and  the  force  of  these  examples  in  the  Acts  of  Parliament,  avail 
anything,  what  can  be  said  against  applying  them  with  regard 
to  America  ?  Are  not  the  people  of  America  as  much  Englishmen 
as  the  Welsh  ?  The  preamble  of  the  Act  of  Henry  the  Eighth 
says,  the  Welsh  speak  a  language  no  way  resembling  that  of  his 
Majesty's  English  subjects.  Are  the  Americans  not  as  numer- 
ous ?  If  we  may  trust  the  learned  and  accurate  Judge  Har- 
rington's account  of  North  Wales,  and  take  that  as  a  standard 


BURKE  99 

to  measure  the  rest,  there  is  no  comparison.  The  people 
cannot  amount  to  above  200,000  ;  not  a  tenth  part  of  the 
number  in  the  colonies.  Is  America  in  rebellion  ?  Wales 
was  hardly  ever  free  from  it.  Have  you  attempted  to  govern 
America  by  penal  statutes  ?  You  made  fifteen  for  Wales. 
But  your  legislative  authority  is  perfect  with  regard  to  America. 
Was  it  less  perfect  in  Wales,  Chester,  and  Durham  ?  But 
America  is  virtually  represented.  What  !  does  the  electric 
force  of  virtual  representation  more  easily  pass  over  the 
Atlantic  than  pervade  Wales,  which  lies  in  your  neighbour- 
hood ;  or  than  Chester  and  Durham,  surrounded  by  abundance 
of  representation  that  is  actual  and  palpable  ?  But,  sir,  your 
ancestors  thought  this  sort  of  virtual  representation,  however 
ample,  to  be  totally  insufficient  for  the  freedom  of  the  inhabi- 
tants of  territories  that  are  so  near,  and  comparatively  so 
inconsiderable.  How,  then,  can  I  think  it  sufficient  for  those 
which  are  infinitely  greater  and  infinitely  more  remote  ? 

You  will  now,  sir,  perhaps  imagine  that  I  am  on  the  point 
of  proposing  to  you  a  scheme  for  representation  of  the  colonies 
in  Parhament.  Perhaps  I  might  be  inclined  to  entertain 
some  such  thought,  but  a  great  flood  stops  me  in  my  course. 
Opposuit  natura.  I  cannot  remove  the  eternal  bamers  of  the 
creation.  The  thing  in  that  mode  I  do  not  know  to  be  possible. 
As  I  meddle  with  no  theory,  I  do  not  absolutely  assert  the 
impracticability  of  such  a  representation  ;  but  I  do  not  see 
my  way  to  it ;  and  those  who  have  been  more  confident  have 
not  been  more  successful.  However,  the  arm  of  public  bene- 
volence is  not  shortened,  and  there  are  often  several  means 
to  the  same  end.  What  nature  has  disjoined  in  one  way 
wisdom  may  unite  in  another.  W^hen  we  cannot  give  the 
benefit  as  we  would  wish,  let  us  not  refuse  it  altogether.  If 
we  cannot  give  the  principal,  let  us  find  a  substitute.  But 
how  ?     Where  ?     What  substitute  ? 

Fortunately  I  am  not  obliged  for  the  ways  and  means  of  this 
substitute  to  tax  my  own  unproductive  invention.  I  am  not 
even  obliged  to  go  to  the  rich  treasury  of  the  fertile  framers 
of  imaginary  Commonwealths  ;  not  to  the  Repubhc  of  Plato, 
not  to  the  Utopia  of  More,  not  to  the  Oceana  of  Harrington. 
It  is  before  me.     It  is  at  my  feet. 

"  And  the  dull  swain 
Treads  daily  on  it  vvith  his  clouted  shoon." 


100  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

I  only  wish  you  to  recognise,  for  the  theory,  the  ancient  con- 
stitutional policy  of  this  Kingdom  with  regard  to  representa- 
tion, as  that  policy  has  been  declared  in  Acts  of  Parliament  ; 
and,  as  to  the  practice,  to  return  to  that  mode  which  a  uniform 
experience  has  marked  out  to  you  as  best,  and  in  which  you 
walked  with  security,  advantage,  and  honour,  until  the  year 
1763. 

My  resolutions,  therefore,  mean  to  establish  the  equity  and 
justice  of  a  taxation  of  America,  by  grant  and  not  by  imposition. 
To  mark  the  legal  competency  of  the  colony  assemblies  for  the 
support  of  their  government  in  peace,  and  for  public  aids  in 
time  of  war.  To  acknowledge  that  this  legal  competency 
has  had  a  dutiful  and  beneficial  exercise  ;  and  that  experience 
has  shown  the  benefit  of  their  grants,  and  the  futility  of 
Parliamentary  taxation  as  a  method  of  supply. 

These  solid  truths  compose  six  fundamental  propositions. 
There  are  three  more  resolutions  corollary  to  these.  If  you 
admit  the  first  set,  you  can  hardly  reject  the  others.  But 
if  you  admit  the  first,  I  shall  be  far  from  solicitous  whether  you 
accept  or  refuse  the  last.  I  think  these  six  massive  pillars 
will  be  of  strength  sufficient  to  support  the  temple  of  British 
concord.  I  have  no  more  doubt  than  I  entertain  of  my  exis- 
tence, that,  if  you  admitted  these,  you  would  command  an 
immediate  peace  ;  and,  with  but  tolerable  future  management, 
a'  lasting  obedience  in  America.  I  am  not  arrogant  in  this 
confident  assurance.  The  propositions  are  all  mere  matters 
of  fact ;  and  if  they  are  such  facts  as  draw  irresistible  con- 
clusions even  in  the  stating,  this  is  the  power  of  truth,  and  not 
any  management  of  mine. 

Sir,  I  shall  open  the  whole  plan  to  you  together  with  such 
observations  on  the  motions  as  may  tend  to  illustrate  them 
where  they  may  want  explanation.     The  first  is  a  resolution  : 

"  That  the  colonies  and  plantations  of  Great  Britain  in  North  America 
consisting  of  fourteen  separate  governments,  and  containing  two 
millions  and  upwards  of  free  inhabitants,  have  not  had  the  liberty  and 
privilege  of  electing  and  sending  any  Knights  and  burgesses  or  others 
to  represent  them  in  the  high  court  of  Parliament." 

That  is  a  plain  matter  of  fact,  necessary  to  be  laid  down,  and 
(excepting  the  description)  it  is  laid  down  in  the  language  of 
the  Constitution  :  it  is  taken  nearly  verbatim  from  Acts  of 
Parliament. 


BURKE  lOl 

The  second  is  like  unto  the  first : 

' '  That  the  said  colonies  and  plantations  have  been  liable  to  and  bounden 

by  several  subsidies,  payments,  rates,  and  taxes,  given  and  granted  by 
Parliament,  though  the  said  colonies  and  plantations  have  not  their 
Knights  and  burgesses  in  the  said  high  court  of  Parliament,  of  their 
owTi  election,  to  represent  the  condition  of  their  country  ;  by  lack 
whereof  they  have  been  oftentimes  touched  and  grieved  by  subsidies 
given,  granted,  and  assented  to,  in  said  court,  in  a  manner  prejudicial 
to  the  Commonwealth,  quietness,  rest,  and  peace  of  the  subjects 
inhabiting  \\'ithin  the  same." 

Is  this  description  too  hot  or  too  cold,  too  strong  or  too 
weak  ?  Does  it  arrogate  too  much  to  the  Supreme  Legislature  ? 
Does  it  lean  too  much  to  the  claims  of  the  people  ?  If  it  runs 
into  any  of  these  errors,  the  fault  is  not  mine.  It  is  the 
language  of  your  own  ancient  Acts  of  Parliament. 

"  Nee  mens  hie  sermo  est  sed  quae  praecipit  Ofellus 
Rusticus,  abnormis  sapiens." 

It  is  the  genuine  produce  of  the  ancient,  rustic,  manly, 
home-bred  sense  of  this  country.  I  did  not  dare  to  rub  off 
a  particle  of  the  venerable  rust  that  rather  adorns  and  pre- 
serves, than  destroys  the  metal.  It  would  be  a  profanation 
to  touch  with  a  tool  the  stones  which  construct  the  sacred  altar 
of  peace.  I  would  not  violate  with  modem  polish  the  ingenious 
and  noble  roughness  of  these  truly  constitutional  materials. 
Above  all  things,  I  was  resolved  not  to  be  guilty  of  tampering, 
the  odious  vice  of  restless  and  unstable  minds.  I  put  my  foot 
in  the  tracks  of  our  forefathers,  where  I  can  neither  wander 
nor  stumble.  Determining  to  fix  articles  of  peace,  I  was 
resolved  not  to  be  wise  beyond  what  was  written  ;  I  was 
resolved  to  use  nothing  else  than  the  form  of  sound  words,  to 
let  others  abound  in  their  own  sense,  and  carefuUy  to  abstain 
from  aU  expressions  of  my  own.  What  the  law  has  said,  I  say. 
In  all  things  else  I  am  silent.  I  have  no  organ  but  for  her 
words.     This,  if  it  be  not  ingenious,  I  am  siure,  is  safe. 

There  are,  indeed,  words  expressive  of  grievance  in  this 
second  resolution,  which  those  who  are  resolved  always  to  be  in 
the  right  will  deny  to  contain  matter  of  fact,  as  applied  to  the 
present  case,  although  Parliament  thought  them  true  with 
regard  to  the  counties  of  Chester  and  Durham.  They  will 
deny  that  the  Americans  were  ever  "  touched  and  grieved  " 
with  the  taxes.     If  they  considered  nothing  in  taxes  but  their 


102  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

weight  as  pecuniary  impositions,  there  might  be  some  pretence 
for  this  denial.  But  men  may  be  sorely  touched  and  deeply 
grieved  in  their  privileges  as  well  as  in  their  purses.  They 
may  lose  little  in  property  by  the  Act  which  takes  away  all 
their  freedom.  When  a  man  is  robbed  of  a  trifle  on  the  high- 
way, it  is  not  the  twopence  lost  that  constitutes  the  capital 
outrage.  This  is  not  confined  to  privileges.  Even  ancient 
indulgences  withdrawn,  without  offence  on  the  part  of  those 
who  enjoy  such  favours,  operate  as  grievances.  But  were  the 
Americans  then  not  touched  and  grieved  by  the  taxes,  in  some 
measure  merely  as  taxes  ?  If  so,  why  were  they  almost  all 
either  wholly  repealed  or  exceedingly  reduced  ?  Were  they 
not  touched  and  grieved,  even  by  the  regulating  duties  of  the 
sixth  of  George  the  Second  ?  Else  why  were  the  duties  first 
reduced  to  one-third  in  1764,  and  afterwards  to  a  third  of  that 
third  in  the  year  1766  ?  Were  they  not  touched  and  grieved 
by  the  Stamp  Act  ?  I  shall  say  they  were,  until  that  tax  is 
revived.  Were  they  not  touched  and  grieved  by  the  duties 
of  1767,  which  were  likewise  repealed,  and  which  Lord  Hills- 
borough tells  you,  for  the  ministry,  were  laid  contrary  to  the 
true  principles  of  commerce  ?  Is  not  the  assurance  given  by 
that  noble  person  to  the  colonies  of  a  resolution  to  lay  no  more 
taxes  on  them,  an  admission  that  taxes  would  touch  and 
grieve  them  ?  Is  not  the  resolution  of  the  noble  lord  in  the 
blue  ribbon,  now  standing  on  your  journals,  the  strongest  of 
all  proofs  that  Parliamentary  subsidies  really  touched  and 
grieved  them  ?  Else  why  all  these  changes,  modifications,, 
repeals,  assurances,  and  resolutions  ? 
The  next  proposition  is  : 

**  That,  from  the  distance  of  the  said  colonies,  and  from  other 
circumstances,  no  method  hath  hitherto  been  devised  for  procuring  a 
representation  in  Parhament  for  the  said  colonies." 

This  is  an  assertion  of  a  fact.  I  go  no  farther  on  the  paper  ; 
though  in  my  private  judgment,  a  useful  representation  is 
impossible  ;  I  am  sure  it  is  not  desired  by  them,  nor  ought  it, 
perhaps,  by  us,  but  I  abstain  from  opinions. 

The  fourth  resolution  is  : 

"  That  each  of  the  said  colonies  hath  within  itself  a  body  chosen  in 
part  or  in  the  whole,  by  the  freemen,  freeholders,  or  other  free  inhabit- 
ants   thereof,   commonly  called   the   General   Assembly,   with  powers 


BURKE  103 

legally  to  raise,  levy,  and  assess,  according  to  the  several  usages  of 
such  colonies,  duties  and  taxes  toward  the  defraying  all  sorts  of  public 
services." 

This  competence  in  the  colony  assemblies  is  certain.  It  is 
proved  by  the  whole  tenor  of  their  acts  of  supply  in  all  the 
assemblies,  in  which  the  constant  style  of  granting  is,  "  an 
aid  to  his  Majesty  "  ;  and  acts  granting  to  the  Crown  have 
regularly  for  near  a  century  passed  the  public  offices  without 
dispute.  Those  who  have  been  pleased  paradoxically  to  deny 
this  right,  holding  that  none  but  the  British  ParHament  can 
grant  to  the  Crown,  are  wished  to  look  to  what  is  done,  not 
only  in  the  colonies,  but  in  Ireland,  in  one  uniform,  unbroken 
tenor  every  session. 

Sir,  I  am  surprised  that  this  doctrine  should  come  from  some 
of  the  law  servants  of  the  Crown.  I  say  that  if  the  Crown 
could  be  responsible,  his  Majesty — but  certainly  the  ministers, 
and  even  these  law  officers  themselves,  through  whose  hands 
the  Acts  pass  biennially  in  Ireland,  or  annually  in  the  colonies, 
are  in  a  habitual  course  of  committing  impeachable  offences. 
What  habitual  offenders  have  been  all  presidents  of  the  council, 
all  secretaries  of  State,  all  first  lords  of  trade,  all  attorneys, 
and  all  solicitors-general !  However,  they  are  safe,  as  no  one 
impeaches  them  ;  and  there  is  no  ground  of  charge  against 
them,  except  in  their  own  unfounded  theories. 

The  fifth  resolution  is  also  a  resolution  of  fact  : 

"  That  the  said  General  Assemblies,  General  Courts,  or  other  bodies 
legally  qualified  as  aforesaid,  have  at  sundry  times  freely  granted 
several  large  subsidies  and  public  aids  for  his  Majesty's  service,  according 
to  their  abilities,  when  required  thereto  by  letter  from  one  of  his 
Majesty's  principal  secretaries  of  State.  And  that  their  right  to  grant 
the  same,  and  their  cheerfulness  and  sufficiency  in  the  said  grants, 
have  been  at  sundry  times  acknowledged  by  Parliament." 

To  say  nothing  of  their  great  expenses  in  the  Indian  wars ; 
and  not  to  take  their  exertion  in  foreign  ones,  so  high  as  the 
supplies  in  the  year  1695,  not  to  go  back  to  their  public  contri- 
butions in  the  year  1710,  I  shall  begin  to  travel  only  where  the 
journals  give  me  light ;  resolving  to  deal  in  nothing  but  fact 
authenticated  by  Parliamentary  record,  and  to  build  myself 
wholly  on  that  solid  basis. 

On  the  4th  of  April,  1748,  a  committee  of  this  House  came 
to  the  following  resolution  : 


104  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

"Resolved,  That  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  committee,  that  it  is  just 
and  reasonable  that  the  several  provinces  and  colonies  of  Massachusetts 
Bay,  New  Hampshire,  Connecticut,  and  Rhode  Island  be  reimbursed 
the  expenses  they  have  been  at  in  taking  and  securing  to  the  Crown 
of  Great  Britain,  the  Island  of  Cape  Breton,  and  its  dependencies." 

These  expenses  were  immense  for  such  colonies.  They  were 
above  £200,000  sterhng  ;  money  first  raised  and  advanced  on 
their  pubhc  credit. 

On  the  28th  of  January,  1756,  a  message  from  the  King 
came  to  us  to  this  effect  : 

**  His  Majesty  being  sensible  of  the  zeal  and  vigour  with  which  his 
faithful  subjects  of  certain  colonies  in  North  America  have  exerted 
themselves  in  defence  of  his  Majesty's  just  rights  and  possessions, 
recommends  it  to  this  House  to  take  the  same  into  their  consideration, 
and  to  enable  his  Majesty  to  give  them  such  assistance  as  may  be  a 
proper  reward  and  encouragement." 

On  the  3rd  of  February,  1756,  the  House  came  to  a  suitable 
resolution,  expressed  in  words  nearly  the  same  as  those  of  the 
message  ;  but  with  the  farther  addition,  that  the  money  then 
voted  was  an  encouragement  to  the  colonies  to  exert  themselves 
with  vigour.  It  will  not  be  necessary  to  go  through  all  the 
testimonies  which  your  own  records  have  given  to  the  truth  of 
my  resolutions.  I  will  only  refer  you  to  the  places  in  the 
journals  :  Vol.  xxvii,  16th  and  19th  May,  1757  ;  Vol.  xxviii, 
June  1st,  1758  ;  April  26th  and  30th,  1759 ;  March  26th  and 
31st,  and  April  28th,  1760  ;  January  9th  and  20th,  1761  ; 
Vol.  xxix,  January  9th  and  20th,  1761  ;  Vol.  xxx,  January 
22nd  and  26th,  1762  ;  March  14th  and  17th,  1763. 

Sir,  here  is  the  repeated  acknowledgment  of  Parliament, 
that  the  colonies  not  only  gave,  but  gave  to  satiety.  This 
nation  has  formally  acknowledged  two  things  :  first,  that  the 
colonies  had  gone  beyond  their  abilities.  Parliament  having 
thought  it  necessary  to  reimburse  them  ;  secondly,  that  they 
had  acted  legally  and  laudably  in  their  grants  of  money,  and 
their  maintenance  of  troops,  since  the  compensation  is  expressly 
given  as  reward  and  encouragement.  Reward  is  not  bestowed 
for  acts  that  are  unlawful ;  and  encouragement  is  not  held  out 
to  things  that  deserve  reprehension.  My  resolution,  therefore, 
does  nothing  more  than  collect  into  one  proposition  what  is 
scattered  through  your  journals.  I  give  you  nothing  but  your 
own,  and  you  cannot  refuse  in  the  gross  what  you  have  so  often 
acknowledged  in  detail.     The  admission  of  this,  which  will  be 


BURKE  105 

so  honourable  to  them  and  to  you,  will,  indeed,  be  mortal  to 
all  the  miserable  stories  by  which  the  passions  of  the  misguided 
people  have  been  engaged  in  an  unhappy  system.  The  people 
heard,  indeed,  from  the  beginning  of  these  disputes,  one  thing 
continually  dinned  in  their  ears,  that  reason  and  justice 
demanded  that  the  Americans,  who  paid  no  taxes,  should  be 
compelled  to  contribute.  How  did  that  fact  of  their  paying 
nothing  stand  when  the  taxing  system  began  ?  When  Mr. 
GrenviUe  began  to  form  his  system  of  American  revenue,  he 
stated  in  this  House  that  the  colonies  were  then  in  debt  two 
million  six  hundred  thousand  pounds  sterling  money,  and  was 
of  opinion  they  would  discharge  that  debt  in  four  years.  On 
this  state,  those  untaxed  people  were  actually  subject  to  the 
payment  of  taxes  to  the  amount  of  six  hundred  and  fifty 
thousand  a  year.  In  fact,  however,  Mr.  Grenville  was  mistaken. 
The  funds  given  for  sinking  the  debt  did  not  prove  quite  so 
ample  as  both  the  colonies  and  he  expected.  The  calculation 
was  too  sanguine  :  the  reduction  was  not  completed  till  some 
years  after,  and  at  different  times  in  different  colonies.  How- 
ever, the  taxes  after  the  war  continued  too  great  to  bear  any 
addition,  with  prudence  or  propriety  ;  and  when  the  burdens 
imposed  in  consequence  of  former  requisitions  were  discharged, 
our  tone  became  too  high  to  resort  again  to  requisition.  No 
colony,  since  that  time,  ever  has  had  any  requisition  whatsoever 
made  to  it. 

We  see  the  sense  of  the  Crown,  and  the  sense  of  Parliament 
on  the  productive  nature  of  a  revenue  by  grant.  Now  search 
the  same  journals  for  the  produce  of  the  revenue  by  imposition. 
Where  is  it  ?  Let  us  know  the  volume  and  the  page.  What 
is  the  gross,  what  is  the  net  produce  ?  To  what  service  is  it 
applied  ?  How  have  you  appropriated  its  surplus  ?  What, 
can  none  of  the  many  skilful  index-makers  that  we  are  now 
employing,  find  any  trace  of  it  ?  Well,  let  them  and  that  rest 
tof^ether.  But,  are  the  journals,  which  say  nothing  of  the 
revenue,  as  silent  on  the  discontent  ?  Oh,  no  !  a  child  may 
find  it.     It  is  the  melancholy  burden  and  blot  of  every  page. 

I  think,  then,  I  am,  from  those  journals,  justified  in  the 
sixth  and  last  resolution,  which  is  : 

"  That  it  hath  been  found  by  experience  that  the  manner  of  granting 
the  said  supphes  and  aids,  by  the  said  general  assembUes,  hath  been 
more  agreeable  to  the  said  colonies,  and  more  beneficial  and  conducive 


106  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

to  the  public  service,  than  the  mode  of  giving  and  granting  aids  in 
Parliament,  to  be  raised  and  paid  in  the  said  colonies." 

This  makes  the  whole  of  the  fundamental  part  of  the  plan. 
The  conclusion  is  irresistible.  You  cannot  say  that  you  were 
driven  by  any  necessity  to  an  exercise  of  the  utmost  rights  of 
legislature.  You  cannot  assert  that  you  took  on  yourselves 
the  task  of  imposing  colony  taxes,  from  the  want  of  another 
legal  body,  that  is  competent  to  the  purpose  of  supplying  the 
exigencies  of  the  State  without  wounding  the  prejudices  of  the 
people.  Neither  is  it  true  that  the  body  so  qualified,  and  having 
that  competence,  had  neglected  the  duty. 

The  question  now  on  all  this  accumulated  matter,  is  whether 
you  will  choose  to  abide  by  a  profitable  experience,  or  a  mis- 
chievous theory  ;  whether  you  choose  to  build  on  imagination 
or  fact ;  whether  you  prefer  enjoyment  or  hope  ;  satisfaction 
in  your  subjects  or  discontent  ? 

If  these  propositions  are  accepted,  everything  which  has 
been  made  to  enforce  a  contrary  system  must,  I  take  it  for 
granted,  fall  along  with  it.  On  that  ground  I  have  drawn  the 
following  resolution,  which,  when  it  comes  to  be  moved,  will 
naturally  be  divided  in  a  proper  manner  : 

"  That  it  may  be  proper  to  repeal  an  act,  made  in  the  seventh  year 
of  the  reign  of  his  present  Majesty,  entitled  An  Act  for  granting  certain 
duties  in  the  British  colonies  and  plantations  in  America  ;  for  allowing 
a  drawback  of  the  duties  of  customs  upon  the  exportation  from  this 
Kingdom  of  coffee  and  cocoa-nuts  of  the  produce  of  the  said  colonies 
or  plantations  ;  for  discontinuing  the  drawbacks  payable  on  China 
earthenware  exported  to  America,  and  for  more  effectually  preventing 
the  clandestine  running  of  goods  in  the  said  colonies  and  plantations  ; 
and  that  it  may  be  proper  to  repeal  an  act,  made  in  the  fourteenth 
year  of  the  reign  of  his  present  Majesty,  entitled.  An  Act  to  discontinue, 
in  such  manner,  and  for  such  time  as  are  therein  mentioned,  the  landing 
and  discharging,  lading,  or  shipping,  of  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise, 
at  the  town  and  within  the  harbour  of  Boston,  in  the  province  of 
Massachusetts  Bay,  in  North  America  ;  and  that  it  may  be  proper  to 
repeal  an  act,  made  in  the  fourteenth  year  of  the  reign  of  his  present 
Majesty,  entitled,  An  Act  for  the  impartial  administration  of  justice 
in  the  cases  of  persons  questioned  for  any  acts  done  by  them  in  the 
execution  of  the  law,  or  for  the  suppression  of  riots  and  tumults  in  the 
province  of  Massachusetts  Bay.  in  New  England  ;  and  that  it  may  be 
proper  to  repeal  an  act,  made  in  the  fourteenth  year  of  the  reign  of  his 
present  Majesty,  entitled.  An  Act  for  the  better  regulating  the  govern- 
ment of  the  province  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  in  New  England  ;  and  also, 
that  it  may  be  proper  to  explain  and  amend  an  act,  made  in  the  thirty- 
fifth  year  of  the  reign  of  King  Henry  the  Eighth,  entitled,  An  Act  for 
the  trial  of  treasons  committed  out  of  the  King's  dominions." 


feURKE  10? 

I  wish,  sir,  to  repeal  the  Boston  Port  Bill,  because  (independ- 
ently of  the  dangers  precedent  of  suspending  the  rights  of  the 
subject  during  the  King's  pleasure)  it  was  passed,  as  I  appre- 
hend, with  less  regularity,  and  on  more  partial  principles,  than 
it  ought.  The  corporation  of  Boston  was  not  heard  before  it 
was  condemned.  Other  towns,  full  as  guilty  as  she  was,  have 
not  had  their  ports  blocked  up.  Even  the  restraining  bill  by 
the  present  session  does  not  go  to  the  length  of  the  Boston 
Port  Act.  The  same  ideas  of  prudence  which  induced  you  not 
to  extend  equal  punishment  to  equal  guilt,  even  when  you  were 
punishing,  induce  me,  who  mean  not  to  chastise,  but  to  reconcile, 
to  be  satisfied  with  the  punishment  already  partially  inflicted. 

Ideas  of  prudence,  and  accommodation  to  circumstances, 
prevent  you  from  taking  away  the  charters  of  Connecticut 
and  Rhode  Island,  as  you  have  taken  away  that  of  Massa- 
chussetts  Colony,  though  the  Crown  has  far  less  power  in  the 
two  former  provinces  than  it  enjoyed  in  the  latter  ;  and  though 
the  abuses  have  been  fuU  as  great  and  as  flagrant  in  the 
exempted  as  in  the  punished.  The  same  reasons  of  prudence 
and  accommodation  have  weight  with  me  in  restoring  the 
charter  of  Massachusetts  Bay.  Besides,  sir,  the  Act  which 
changes  the  charter  of  Massachusetts  is  in  many  particulars 
so  exceptionable,  that  if  I  did  not  absolutely  wish  to  repeal, 
I  would  by  all  means  desire  to  alter  it,  as  several  of  its  pro- 
visions tend  to  the  subversion  of  all  public  and  private  justice. 
Such,  among  others,  is  the  power  in  the  Governor  to  change  the 
Sheriff  at  his  pleasure,  and  to  make  a  new  returning  officer  for 
every  special  cause.  It  is  shameful  to  behold  such  a  regulation 
standing  among  English  laws. 

The  Act  for  bringing  persons  accused  of  committing  murder 
under  the  orders  of  government  to  England  for  trial,  is  but 
temporary.  The  Act  has  calculated  the  probable  duration 
of  our  quarrel  with  the  colonies,  and  is  accommodated  to  that 
supposed  duration.  I  would  hasten  the  happy  moment  of 
reconciliation,  and  therefore  must,  on  my  principle,  get  rid 
of  that  most  justly  obnoxious  Act. 

The  Act  of  Henry  the  Eighth,  for  the  trial  of  treasons,  I  do 
not  mean  to  take  away,  but  to  confine  it  to  its  proper  bounds 
and  original  intention  ;  to  make  it  expressly  for  trials  of 
treason  (and  the  greatest  treasons  may  be  committed)  in  places 
where  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Crown  does  not  extend. 


108  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

Having  guarded  the  privileges  of  local  legislation,  I  would 
next  secure  to  the  colonies  a  fair  and  unbiased  judicature;  for 
which  purpose,  sir,  I  propose  the  following  resolution  : 

"  That,  from  the  time  when  the  General  Assembly  or  General  Court 
of  any  colony  or  plantation  in  North  America,  shall  have  appointed 
by  act  of  assembly,  duly  confirmed,  a  settled  salary  to  the  offices  of 
the  Chief  Justice  and  other  judges  of  the  Superior  Court,  it  may  be 
proper  that  the  said  Chief  Justice  and  other  judges  of  the  Superior 
Courts  of  such  colony,  shall  hold  his  and  their  office  and  offices  during 
their  good  behaviour,  and  shall  not  be  removed  therefrom,  but  when 
the  said  removal  shall  be  adjudged  by  his  Majesty  in  council,  upon  a 
hearing  or  complaint  from  the  Governor,  or  Council,  or  the  House  of 
Representatives  severally,  of  the  colony  in  which  the  said  Chief  Justice 
and  other  judges  have  exercised  the  said  offices." 

The  next  resolution  relates  to  the  Courts  of  Admiralty.  It 
is  this  : 

"  That  it  may  be  proper  to  regulate  the  Courts  of  Admiralty,  or  Vice- 
Admiralty,  authorized  by  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  the  fourth  of  George 
the  Third,  in  such  a  manner  as  to  make  the  same  more  commodious 
to  those  who  sue,  or  are  sued,  in  the  said  courts,  and  to  provide  for  the 
more  decent  maintenance  of  the  judges  in  the  same." 

These  courts  I  do  not  wish  to  take  away.  They  are  in  theniT 
selves  proper  establishments.  This  court  is  one  of  the  capital 
securities  of  the  Act  of  Navigation.  The  extent  of  its  juris- 
diction, indeed,  has  been  increased  ;  but  this  is  altogether 
as  proper,  and  is,  indeed,  on  many  accounts,  more  eligible, 
where  new  powers  were  wanted,  than  a  court  absolutely  new. 
But  courts  incommodiously  situated,  in  effect,  deny  justice  ; 
and  a  court,  partaking  in  the  fruits  of  its  own  condemnation,  is 
a  robber.  The  Congress  complain,  and  complain  justly,  of 
this  grievance. 

These  are  the  three  consequential  propositions.  T  have 
thought  of  two  or  three  more,  but  they  come  rather  too  near 
detail,  and  to  the  promise  of  executive  government,  which  I 
wish  Parliament  always  to  superintend,  never  to  assume.  If 
the  first  six  are  granted,  congruity  will  carry  the  latter  three. 
If  not,  the  things  that  remain  unrepealed  will  be,  I  hope, 
rather  unseemly  encumbrances  on  the  building,  than  very 
materially  detrimental  to  its  strength  and  stability.  And 
that  the  colonies,  grounding  themselves  upon  that  doctrine, 
will  apply  it  to  all  parts  of  legislative  authority. 

Here,  sir,  I  should  close,  but  that  I  plainly  perceive  some 


BURKE  109 

objections  remain,  which  I  ought,  if  possible,  to  remove.  The 
first  will  be,  that,  in  resorting  to  the  doctrine  of  our  ancestors, 
as  contained  in  the  preamble  to  the  Chester  Act,  I  prove  too 
much  ;  that  the  grievance  from  a  want  of  representation  stated 
in  that  preamble,  goes  to  the  whole  of  legislation  as  well  as  to 
taxation. 

To  this  objection,  with  all  possible  deference  and  humility, 
and  wishing  as  little  as  any  man  living  to  impair  the  smallest 
particle  of  our  supreme  authority,  I  answer,  that  the  words  are 
the  words  of  Parliament,  and  not  mine  ;  and  that  all  false  and 
inconclusive  inferences  drawn  from  them  are  not  mine,  for  I 
heartily  disclaim  any  such  inference.  I  have  chosen  the  words 
of  an  Act  of  Parliament,  which  Mr.  Grenville,  surely  a  tolerably 
zealous  and  very  judicious  advocate  for  the  sovereignty  of 
Parliament,  formerly  moved  to  have  read  at  your  table,  in 
confirmation  of  his  tenets.  It  is  true  that  Lord  Chatham  con- 
sidered these  preambles  as  declaring  strongly  in  favour  of  his 
opinions.  He  was  no  less  a  powerful  advocate  for  the  privileges 
of  the  Americans.  Ought  I  not  from  hence  to  presume  that 
these  preambles  are  as  favourable  as  possible  to  both,  when 
properly  understood  ;  favourable  both  to  the  rights  of  Parlia- 
ment, and  to  the  privilege  of  the  dependencies  of  this  Crown  ? 
But,  sir,  the  object  of  grievance  in  my  resolution  I  have  not 
taken  from  the  Chester,  but  from  the  Durham  Act,  which 
confines  the  hardship  of  want  of  representation  to  the  case  of 
subsidies,  and  which,  therefore,  falls  in  exactly  with  the  case 
of  the  colonies.  But  whether  the  unrepresented  counties 
were  de  jure  or  de  facto  bound,  the  preambles  do  not  accurately 
distinguish  ;  nor  indeed  was  it  necessary  ;  for,  whether  de 
jure  or  de  facto,  the  Legislature  thought  the  exercise  of  the  power 
of  taxing,  as  of  right,  or  as  of  fact  without  right,  equally  a 
grievance,  and  equally  oppressive. 

I  do  not  know  that  the  colonies  have,  in  any  general  way, 
or  in  any  cool  hour,  gone  much  beyond  the  demand  of  immunity 
in  relation  to  taxes.  It  is  not  fair  to  judge  of  the  temper  or 
dispositions  of  any  man,  or  any  set  of  men,  when  they  are  com- 
posed and  at  rest,  from  their  conduct  or  their  expressions  in  a 
state  of  disturbance  and  irritation.  It  is,  besides,  a  very  great 
mistake  to  imagine  that  mankind  follow  up  practically  any 
speculative  principle,  either  of  government  or  freedom,  as  far 
as  it  will  go  in  argument  and  logical  illation.     We  Englishmen 


no  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

stop  very  short  of  the  principles  upon  which  we  support  any 
given  part  of  our  Constitution,  or  even  the  whole  of  it  together. 
I  could  easily,  if  I  had  not  altogether  tired  you,  give  you  very 
striking  and  convincing  instances  of  it.  This  is  nothing  but 
what  is  natural  and  proper.  All  government,  indeed  every 
human  benefit  and  enjoyment,  every  virtue  and  every  prudent 
act,  is  founded  on  compromise  and  barter.  We  balance  incon- 
veniences ;  we  give  and  take  ;  we  remit  some  rights  that  we 
may  enjoy  others  ;  and  we  choose  rather  to  be  happy  citizens 
than  subtle  disputants.  As  we  must  give  away  some  natural 
liberty  to  enjoy  civil  advantages,  so  we  must  sacrifice  some 
civil  liberties  for  the  advantages  to  be  derived  from  the  com- 
munion and  fellowship  of  a  great  Empire.  But,  in  all  fair 
dealings,  the  thing  bought  must  bear  some  proportion  to  the 
purchase  paid.  None  will  barter  away  "  the  immediate  jewel 
of  his  soul."  Though  a  great  house  is  apt  to  make  slaves 
haughty,  yet  it  is  purchasing  a  part  of  the  artificial  importance 
of  a  great  Empire  too  dear  to  pay  for  it  all  essential  rights  and 
all  the  intrinsic  dignity  of  human  nature.  None  of  us  who 
would  not  risk  his  life  rather  than  fall  under  a  government 
purely  arbitrary.  But,  although  there  are  some  among  us 
who  think  our  Constitution  wants  many  improvements  to 
make  it  a  complete  system  of  liberty,  perhaps  none  who  are 
of  that  opinion  would  think  it  right  to  aim  at  such  improve- 
ment by  disturbing  his  country,  and  risking  everything  that 
is  dear  to  him.  In  every  arduous  enterprise,  we  consider  what 
we  are  to  lose  as  well  as  what  we  are  to  gain  ;  and  the  more 
and  better  stake  of  liberty  every  people  possess,  the  less  they 
will  hazard  in  a  vain  attempt  to  make  it  more.  These  are 
the  cords  of  man.  Man  acts  from  adequate  motive  relative  to 
his  interest,  and  not  on  metaphysical  speculations.  Aristotle, 
the  great  master  of  reasoning,  cautions  us,  and  with  great 
weight  and  propriety,  against  this  species  of  delusive  geo- 
metrical accuracy  in  moral  arguments  as  the  most  fallacious 
of  all  sophistry. 

The  American  will  have  no  interest  contrary  to  the  grandeur 
and  glory  of  England,  when  they  are  not  oppressed  by  the 
weight  of  it ;  and  they  will  rather  be  inclined  to  respect  the 
acts  of  a  superintending  Legislature,  when  they  see  them  the 
acts  of  that  power  which  is  itself  the  security,  not  the  rival,  of 
their  secondary  importance.     In  this  assurance  my  mind  most 


BURKE  111 

perfectly  acquiesces,  and  I  confess  I  feel  not  the  least  alarm 
from  the  discontents  which  are  to  arise  from  putting  people 
at  their  ease  ;  nor  do  I  apprehend  the  destruction  of  this 
Empire  from  giving  by  an  act  of  free  grace  and  indulgence, 
to  two  millions  of  my  fellow-citizens,  some  share  of  those 
rights  upon  which  I  have  always  been  taught  to  value  myself. 

It  is  said,  indeed,  that  this  power  of  granting,  vested  in 
American  assemblies,  would  dissolve  the  unity  of  the  empire, 
which  was  preserved  entire,  although  Wales,  and  Chester,  and 
Durham  were  added  to  it.  Truly,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not  know 
what  this  unity  means,  nor  has  it  ever  been  heard  of,  that  I 
know,  in  the  constitutional  policy  of  this  country.  The  very 
idea  of  subordination  of  parts  excludes  this  notion  of  simple 
and  undivided  unity.  England  is  the  head,  but  she  is  not  the 
head  and  the  members,  too.  Ireland  has  ever  had  from  the 
beginning  a  separate,  but  not  an  independent  Legislature, 
which,  far  from  distracting,  promoted  the  union  of  the  whole. 
Everything  was  sweetly  and  harmoniously  disposed  through 
both  islands  for  the  conservation  of  Enghsh  dominion  and  the 
communication  of  English  liberties.  I  do  not  see  that  the 
same  principles  might  not  be  carried  into  twenty  islands,  and 
with  the  same  good  effect.  This  is  my  model  with  regard  to 
America,  as  far  as  the  internal  circumstances  of  the  two  coun- 
tries are  the  same.  I  know  no  other  unity  of  this  Empire  than 
I  can  draw  from  its  example  during  these  periods,  when  it 
seemed  to  my  poor  understanding  more  united  than  it  is  now, 
or  than  it  is  hkely  to  be  by  the  present  methods. 

But  since  I  speak  of  these  methods,  I  recollect,  Mr.  Speaker, 
almost  too  late,  that  I  promised,  before  I  finished,  to  say  some- 
thing of  the  proposition  of  the  noble  Lord  [Lord  North]  on  the 
floor,  which  has  been  so  lately  received,  and  stands  on  your 
journals.  I  must  be  deeply  concerned  whenever  it  is  my 
misfortune  to  continue  a  difference  \vith  the  majority  of  this 
House.  But  as  the  reasons  for  that  difference  are  my  apology 
for  thus  troubling  you,  suffer  me  to  state  them  in  a  very  few 
words.  I  shall  compress  them  into  as  small  a  body  as  I  possibly 
can,  having  already  debated  that  matter  at  large  when  the 
question  was  before  the  committee. 

First,  then,  I  cannot  admit  that  proposition  of  a  ransom  by 
auction,  because  it  is  a  mere  project.  It  is  a  thing  new  ; 
unheard  of ;    supported  by  no  experience  ;    justified  by  no 


112  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

analogy  ;  without  example  of  our  ancestors,  or  root  in  the 
Constitution.  It  is  neither  regular  parliamentary  taxation 
nor  colony  grant.  *'  Experimentum  in  corpore  vili  "  is  a  good 
rule,  which  will  ever  make  me  adverse  to  any  trial  of  experi- 
ments on  what  is  most  certainly  the  most  valuable  of  all 
subjects,  the  peace  of  this  Empire. 

Secondly,  it  is  an  experiment  which  must  be  fatal,  in  the  end, 
to  our  Constitution.  For  what  is  it  but  a  scheme  for  taxing 
the  colonies  in  the  ante-chamber  of  the  noble  Lord  and  his 
successors  ?  To  settle  the  quotas  and  proportions  in  this 
House  is  clearly  impossible.  You,  Sir,  may  flatter  yourself 
you  shall  sit  a  state  auctioneer  with  your  hammer  in  your 
hand,  and  knock  down  to  each  colony  as  it  bids.  But  to  settle 
(on  the  plan  laid  down  by  the  noble  Lord)  the  true  proportional 
payments  for  four  or  five-and-twenty  governments  according 
to  the  absolute  and  the  relative  wealth  of  each,  and  according 
to  the  British  proportion  of  wealth  and  burden,  is  a  wild  and 
chimerical  notion.  This  new  taxation  must  therefore  come  in 
by  the  back  door  of  the  Constitution.  Each  quota  must  be 
brought  to  this  House  ready  formed  ;  you  can  neither  add  nor 
alter.  You  must  register  it.  You  can  do  nothing  farther. 
For  on  what  grounds  can  you  deliberate,  either  before  or  after 
the  proposition  ?  You  cannot  hear  the  counsel  for  all  these 
provinces,  quarrelling  each  on  its  own  quantity  of  payment, 
and  its  proportion  to  others.  If  you  should  attempt  it,  the 
committee  of  provincial  ways  and  means,  or  by  whatever 
other  name  it  will  delight  to  be  called,  must  swallow  up  all  the 
time  of  Parliament. 

Thirdly,  it  does  not  give  satisfaction  to  the  complaint  of  the 
colonies.  They  complain  that  they  are  taxed  without  their 
consent ;  you  answer,  that  you  will  fix  the  sum  at  which  they 
shall  be  taxed.  That  is,  you  give  them  the  very  grievance  for 
the  remedy.  You  tell  them,  indeed,  that  you  will  leave  the 
mode  to  themselves.  I  really  beg  pardon.  It  gives  me  pain 
to  mention  it ;  but  you  must  be  sensible  that  you  will  not 
perform  this  part  of  the  contract.  For,  suppose  the  colonies 
were  to  lay  the  duties  which  furnished  their  contingents  upon 
the  importation  of  your  manufactures  ?  You  know  you  would 
never  suffer  such  a  tax  to  be  laid.  You  know,  too,  that  you 
would  not  suffer  many  other  modes  of  taxation ;  so  that  when 
you  come  to  explain  yourself,  it  will  be  found  that  you  will 


BURKE  113 

neither  leave  to  themselves  the  quantum  nor  the  mode,  nor, 
indeed,  anything.  The  whole  is  delusion  from  one  end  to  the 
other. 

Fourthly,  this  method  of  ransom  by  auction,  unless  it  be 
universally  diccepted,  will  plunge  you  into  great  and  inextricable 
difficulties.  In  what  year  of  our  Lord  are  the  proportions 
of  payments  to  be  settled,  to  say  nothing  of  the  impossibility, 
that  colony  agents  should  have  general  powers  of  taxing  the 
colonies  at  their  discretion  ?  Consider,  I  implore  you,  that 
the  communication  by  special  messages,  and  orders  between 
these  agents  and  their  constituents  on  each  variation  of  the 
case,  when  the  parties  come  to  contend  together,  and  to  dis- 
pute on  their  relative  proportions,  will  be  a  matter  of  delay, 
perplexity,  and  confusion,  that  never  can  have  an  end. 

If  all  the  colonies  do  not  appear  at  the  outcry,  what  is  the 
condition  of  those  assemblies,  who  offer,  by  themselves  or  their 
agents,  to  tax  themselves  up  to  your  ideas  of  their  proportion  ? 
The  refractory  colonies  who  refuse  all  composition  will  remain 
taxed  only  to  your  old  impositions,  which,  however  grievous 
in  principle,  or  trifling  as  to  production.  The  obedient  colonies 
in  this  scheme  are  heavily  taxed  ;  the  refractory  remain  un- 
burdened. What  will  you  do  ?  Will  you  lay  new  and  heavier 
taxes  by  Parliament  on  the  disobedient  ?  Pray  consider  in 
what  way  you  can  do  it.  You  are  perfectly  convinced  that  in 
the  way  of  taxing  you  can  do  nothing  but  at  the  ports.  Now 
suppose  it  is  Virginia  that  refuses  to  appear  at  your  auction, 
while  Maryland  and  North  Carolina  bid  handsomely  for  their 
ransom,  and  are  taxed  to  your  quota.  How  will  you  put  these 
colonies  on  a  par  ?  Will  you  tax  the  tobacco  of  Virginia  ? 
If  you  do,  you  give  its  death  wound  to  your  English  revenue 
at  home,  and  to  one  of  the  very  greatest  articles  of  your  own 
foreign  trade.  If  you  tax  the  import  of  that  rebellious  colony, 
what  do  you  tax  but  your  own  manufactures,  or  the  goods  of 
some  other  obedient  and  already  well-taxed  colony  ?  Who  has 
said  one  word  on  this  labyrinth  of  detail,  which  bewilders  you 
more  and  more  as  you  enter  into  it  ?  Who  has  presented,  who 
can  present  you  with  a  clew  to  lead  you  out  of  it  ?  I  think, 
Sir,  it  is  impossible  that  you  should  not  recollect  that  the  colony 
bounds  are  so  implicated  in  one  another  (you  know  it  by  your 
own  experiments  in  the  bill  for  prohibiting  the  New  England 
fishery)  that  you  can  lay  no  possible  restraints  on  almost  any 

8 — (2170; 


114  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

of  them  which  may  not  be  presently  eluded,  if  you  do  not 
confound  the  innocent  with  the  guilty,  and  burden  those  whom 
upon  every  principle,  you  ought  to  exonerate.  He  must  be 
grossly  ignorant  of  America  who  thinks  that,  without  falHng 
into  this  confusion  of  all  rules  of  equity  and  policy,  you  can 
restrain  any  single  colony,  especially  Virginia  and  Maryland, 
the  central  and  most  important  of  them  all. 

Let  it  also  be  considered,  that  either  in  the  present  confusion 
you  settle  a  permanent  contingent  which  will  and  must  be 
trifling,  and  then  you  have  no  effectual  revenue  ;  or,  you 
change  the  quota  at  every  exigency,  and  then  on  every  new 
repartition  you  will  have  a  new  quarrel. 

Reflect,  besides,  that  when  you  have  fixed  a  quota  for  every 
colony,  you  have  not  provided  for  prompt  and  punctual  pay- 
ment. Suppose  one,  two,  five,  ten  years'  arrears.  You  cannot 
issue  a  Treasury  Extent  against  the  failing  colony.  You  must 
make  new  Boston  Port  Bills,  new  restraining  laws,  new  acts  for 
dragging  men  to  England  for  trial.  You  must  send  out  new 
fleets,  new  armies.  All  is  to  begin  again.  From  this  day 
forward  the  Empire  is  never  to  know  an  hour's  tranquillity. 
An  intestine  fire  will  be  kept  alive  in  the  bowels  of  the  colonies, 
which  one  time  or  another  must  consume  this  whole  Empire. 
I  allow,  indeed,  that  the  Empire  of  Germany  raises  her  revenue 
and  her  troops  by  quotas  and  contingents  ;  but  the  revenue 
of  the  Empire,  and  the  army  of  the  Empire,  is  the  worst 
revenue  and  the  worst  army  in  the  world. 

Instead  of  a  standing  revenue,  you  will  therefore  have  a 
perpetual  quarrel.  Indeed,  the  noble  Lord  who  proposed  this 
project  of  a  ransom  by  auction,  seemed  himself  to  be  of  that 
opinion.  His  project  was  rather  designed  for  breaking  the 
union  of  the  colonies  than  for  establishing  a  revenue.  He  con- 
fessed that  he  apprehended  that  his  proposal  would  not  be  to 
their  taste.  I  say  this  scheme  of  disunion  seems  to  be  at  the 
bottom  of  the  project ;  for  I  will  not  suspect  that  the  noble 
Lord  meant  nothing  but  merely  to  delude  the  nation  by  an 
airy  phantom  which  he  never  intended  to  realise.  But, 
whatever  his  views  may  be,  as  I  propose  the  peace  and  union 
of  the  colonies  as  the  very  foundation  of  my  plan,  it  cannot 
accord  with  one  whose  foundation  is  perpetual  discord. 

Compare  the  two.  This  I  offer  to  give  you  is  plain  and  simple. 
The  other,   full   of  perplexed  and  intricate  mazes.     This  is 


BURKE  115 

mild  ;  that,  harsh.  This  is  formed  by  experience  effectual 
for  its  purposes  ;  the  other  is  a  new  project.  This  is  uni- 
versal ;  the  other,  calculated  for  certain  colonies  only.  This  is 
immediate  in  its  conciliatory  operation  ;  the  other,  remote, 
contingent,  full  of  hazard.  Mine  is  what  becomes  the  dignity 
of  a  ruling  people  ;  gratuitous,  unconditional,  and  not  held 
out  as  matter  of  bargain  and  sale.  I  have  done  my  duty  in 
proposing  it  to  you.  I  have  indeed  tired  you  by  a  long  dis- 
course ;  but  this  is  the  misfortune  of  those  to  whose  influence 
nothing  will  be  conceded,  and  who  must  win  every  inch  of  their 
ground  by  argument.  You  have  heard  me  with  goodness. 
May  you  decide  with  wisdom  !  For  my  part,  I  feel  my  mind 
greatly  disburdened  by  what  I  have  done  to-day.  I  have  been 
the  less  fearful  of  trjdng  your  patience,  because  on  this  subject 
I  mean  to  spare  it  altogether  in  future.  I  have  this  comfort, 
that  in  every  stage  of  the  American  affairs,  I  have  steadily 
opposed  the  measures  that  have  produced  the  confusion, 
and  may  bring  on  the  destruction  of  this  Empire.  I  now 
go  so  far  as  to  risk  a  proposal  of  my  own.  If  I  cannot  give 
peace  to  my  country,  I  give  it  to  my  conscience. 

But  what,  says  the  financier,  is  peace  to  us  without  money  ? 
Your  plan  gives  us  no  revenue.  No  !  But  it  does — for  it 
secures  to  the  subject  the  power  of  refusal — the  first  of 
all  revenues.  Experience  is  a  cheat,  and  fact  a  liar,  if  this 
power  in  the  subject  of  proportioning  his  grant,  or  of  not  grant- 
ing at  all,  has  not  been  found  the  richest  mine  of  revenue 
ever  discovered  by  the  skill  or  by  the  fortune  of  man.  It 
does  not,  indeed,  vote  you  £152,750  lis.  2|-d.,  nor  any  other 
paltry  limited  sum,  but  it  gives  the  strong  box  itself,  the  fund, 
the  bank,  from  whence  only  revenues  can  arise  among  a  people 
sensible  of  freedom  :    Posita  luditur  area. 

Cannot  you  in  England  ;  cannot  you  at  this  time  of  day  ; 
cannot  you — a  House  of  Commons — trust  to  the  principle 
which  has  raised  so  mighty  a  revenue,  and  accumulated  a 
debt  of  near  one  hundred  and  forty  millions  in  this  country  ? 
Is  this  principle  to  be  true  in  England  and  false  everywhere 
else  ?  Is  it  not  true  in  Ireland  ?  Has  it  not  hitherto  been 
true  in  the  colonies  ?  Why  should  you  presume,  that  in  any 
country,  a  body  duly  constituted  for  any  functions  wiU  neglect 
to  perform  its  duty,  and  abdicate  its  trust  ?  Such  a  presump- 
tion would  go  against  all  government  in  all  modes.     But,  in 


116  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

truth,  this  dread  of  penury  of  supply,  from  a  free  assembly, 
has  no  foundation  in  nature.  For  first  observe,  that,  besides 
the  desire,  which  all  men  have  naturally,  of  supporting  the 
honour  of  their  own  government,  that  sense  of  dignity,  and  that 
security  of  property,  which  ever  attends  freedom,  has  a  ten- 
dency to  increase  the  stock  of  the  free  community.  Most  may 
be  taken  where  most  is  accumulated.  And  what  is  the  soil 
or  climate  where  experience  has  not  uniformly  proved  that  the 
voluntary  flow  of  heaped-up  plenty,  bursting  from  the  weight 
of  its  own  rich  luxuriance,  has  ever  run  with  a  more  copious 
stream  of  revenue,  than  could  be  squeezed  from  the  dry  husks 
of  oppressed  indigence,  by  the  straining  of  all  the  political 
machinery  in  the  world. 

Next,  we  know  that  parties  must  ever  exist  in  a  free  country. 
We  know,  too,  that  the  emulations  of  such  parties,  their  con- 
tradictions, their  reciprocal  necessities,  their  hopes,  and  their 
fears,  must  send  them  all  in  their  turns  to  him  that  holds  the 
balance  of  the  State.  The  parties  are  the  gamesters,  but 
government  keeps  the  table,  and  is  sure  to  be  the  winner  in 
the  end.  When  this  game  is  played,  I  really  think  it  is  more 
to  be  feared  that  the  people  will  be  exhausted,  than  that 
government  will  not  be  supplied  ;  whereas,  whatever  is  got 
by  acts  of  absolute  power,  ill  obeyed,  because  odious,  or  by 
contracts  ill  kept,  because  constrained,  will  be  narrow,  feeble, 
uncertain,  and  precarious. 

"  Ease  would  retract 
Vows  made  in  pain,  as  violent  and  void." 

I,  for  one,  protest  against  compounding  our  demands.  I 
declare  against  compounding,  for  a  poor  limited  sum,  the 
immense,  ever-growing,  eternal  debt  which  is  due  to  generous 
government  for  protected  freedom.  And  so  may  I  speed  in 
the  great  object  I  propose  to  you,  as  I  think  it  would  not  only 
be  an  act  of  injustice,  but  would  be  the  worst  economy  in  the 
world,  to  compel  the  colonies  to  a  sum  certain,  either  in  the 
way  of  ransom  or  in  the  way  of  compulsory  compact. 

But  to  clear  up  my  ideas  on  this  subject ;  a  revenue  from 
America  transmitted  hither — do  not  delude  yourselves — you 
never  can  receive  it — no,  not  a  shilling.  We  have  experienced 
that  from  remote  countries :  it  is  not  to  be  expected.  If,  when 
you  attempted  to  extract  revenue  from  Bengal,  you  were 
obliged  to  return  in  loan  what  you  had  taken  in  imposition, 


BURKE  117 

what  can  you  expect  from  North  America  ?  for  certainly, 
if  ever  there  was  a  country  quahfied  to  produce  wealth,  it  is 
India  ;  or  an  institution  fit  for  the  transmission,  it  is  the  East 
India  Company.  America  has  none  of  these  aptitudes.  If 
America  gives  you  taxable  objects  on  which  you  lay  your 
duties  here,  and  gives  you,  at  the  same  time,  a  surplus  by  a 
foreign  sale  of  her  commodities  to  pay  the  duties  on  these 
objects  which  you  tax  at  home,  she  has  performed  her  part  to 
the  British  revenue.  But  with  regard  to  her  own  internal 
establishments,  she  may,  I  doubt  not  she  will,  contribute  in 
moderation  ;  I  say  in  moderation,  for  she  ought  not  to  be 
permitted  to  exhaust  herself.  She  ought  to  be  reserved  to  a 
war,  the  weight  of  which,  with  the  enemies  that  we  are  most 
likely  to  have,  must  be  considerable  in  her  quarter  of  the  globe. 
There  she  may  serve  you,  and  serve  you  essentially. 

For  that  service,  for  aU  service,  whether  of  revenue,  trade 
or  empire,  my  trust  is  in  her  interest  in  the  British  Constitution. 
My  hold  of  the  colonies  is  in  the  close  affection  which  grows 
from  common  names,  from  kindred  blood,  from  similar  privi- 
leges, and  equal  protection.  These  are  ties  which,  though  hght 
as  air,  are  as  strong  as  hnks  of  iron.  Let  the  colonies  always 
keep  the  idea  of  their  civil  rights  associated  with  your  govern- 
ment ;  they  will  cling  and  grapple  to  you,  and  no  force  under 
heaven  wiU  be  of  power  to  tear  them  from  their  allegiance. 
But  let  it  be  once  understood  that  your  government  may  be 
one  thing,  and  their  privileges  another  ;  that  these  two  things 
may  exist  without  any  mutual  relation ;  the  cement  is  gone  ; 
the  cohesion  is  loosened  ;  and  everything  hastens  to  decay 
and  dissolution.  As  long  as  you  have  the  wisdom  to  keep  the 
sovereign  authority  in  this  country  as  the  sanctuary  of  Hberty, 
the  sacred  temple  consecrated  to  our  common  faith,  wherever 
the  chosen  race  and  sons  of  England  worship  Freedom,  they 
will  turn  their  faces  toward  you.  The  more  they  multiply, 
the  more  friends  you  will  have.  The  more  ardently  they  love 
liberty,  the  more  perfect  \\iU  be  their  obedience.  Slavery  they 
can  have  anywhere.  It  is  a  weed  that  grows  in  every  soil. 
They  may  have  it  from  Spain  ;  they  may  have  it  from  Prussia  ; 

J5ut,  until  you  become  lost  to  aU  feeling  of  your 'true  interest 

and  your  natural  dignity,  freedom  they  can  have  from  none 
but  you.  This  is  the  commodity  of  price,  of  which  you  have 
the  monopoly.     This  is  the  true  Act  of  Navigation,  which  binds 


L 


118  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

to  you  the  commerce  of  the  colonies,  and  through  them  secures 
to  you  the  wealth  of  the  world.  Deny  them  this  participa- 
tion of  freedom,  and  you  break  that  sole  bond  which  originally 
made,  must  still  preserve,  the  unity  of  the  Empire.  Do  not 
entertain  so  weak  an  imagination  as  that  your  registers  and 
your  bonds,  your  affidavits  and  your  sufferances,  your  cockets 
and  your  clearances,  are  what  form  the  great  securities  of  your 
commerce.  Do  not  dream  that  your  letters  of  office,  and  your 
instructions,  and  your  suspending  clauses,  are  the  things  that 
hold  together  the  great  contexture  of  this  mysterious  whole. 
These  things  do  not  make  your  government.  Dead  instru- 
ments, passive  tools  as  they  are,  it  is  the  spirit  of  the  English 
communion  that  gives  all  their  life  and  efficacy  to  them.  It 
is  the  spirit  of  the  English  Constitution,  which,  infused  through 
the  mighty  mass,  pervades,  feeds,  unites,  invigorates,  vivifies 
every  part  of  the  Empire,  even  down  to  the  minutest  member. 

Is  it  not  the  same  virtue  which  does  everything  for  us  here 
in  England  ? 

Do  you  imagine,  then,  that  it  is  the  Land  Tax  which  raises 
your  revenue  ?  that  it  is  the  annual  vote  in  the  Committee 
of  Supply,  which  gives  you  your  army  ?  or  that  it  is  the  Mutiny 
Bill,  which  inspires  it  with  bravery  and  discipline  ?  No  ! 
surely  no  !  It  is  the  love  of  the  people  ;  it  is  their  attachment 
to  their  government,  from  the  sense  of  the  deep  stake  they 
have  in  such  a  glorious  institution,  which  gives  you  your  army 
and  your  navy,  and  infuses  into  both  that  liberal  obedience, 
without  which  your  army  would  be  a  base  rabble,  and  your 
navy  but  rotten  timber.  ^ 

All  this,  I  know  well  enough,  will  sound  wild  and  chimerical 
to  the  profane  herd  of  those  vulgar  and  mechanical  politicians, 
who  have  no  place  among  us  ;  a  sort  of  people  who  think  that 
nothing  exists  but  what  is  gross  and  material,  and  who,  there- 
fore, far  from  being  qualified  to  be  directors  of  the  great  move- 
ment of  Empire,  are  not  fit  to  turn  a  wheel  in  the  machine. 
But  to  men  truly  initiated  and  rightly  taught,  these  ruling 
and  master  principles,  which,  in  the  opinion  of  such  men  as  I 
have  mentioned,  have  no  substantial  existence,  are  in  truth 
everything  and  all  in  all.  Magnanimity  in  politics  is  not 
seldom  the  truest  wisdom  ;  and  a  great  Empire  and  little  minds 
go  ill  together.  If  we  are  conscious  of  our  situation,  and  glow 
with  zeal  to  fill  our  places  as  becomes  our  station  and  ourselves, 


BURKE  119 

we  ought  to  auspicate  all  our  public  proceedings  on  America 
with  the  old  warning  of  the  Church,  sursum  corda  !  We  ought 
to  elevate  our  minds  to  the  greatness  of  that  trust  to  which 
the  order  of  Providence  has  called  us.  By  adverting  to  the 
dignity  of  this  high  calling,  our  ancestors  have  turned  a  savage 
wilderness  into  a  glorious  empire,  and  have  made  the  most 
extensive  and  the  only  honourable  conquests,  not  by  destroying 
but  by  promoting^  the  wealth,  the  number,  the  happiness  of 
tbe^  human -race.  (Let  us  get  an  American  revenue  as  we  have 
got  an  American  empire.  English  privileges  have  made  it  all 
that  it  is  ;    English  privileges  alone  will  make  it  all  it  can  be. 

In  full  confidence  of  this  unalterable  truth,  I  now,  quod  felix 
faustumque  sit,  lay  the  first  stone  in  the  temple  of  peace  ;  and 
I  move  you  : 

That  the  colonies  and  plantations  of  Great  Britain 
AND  North  America,  consisting   of   fourteen  separate 

GOVERNMENTS,  AND  CONTAINING  TWO  MILLION  AND  UPWARDS 
OF  FREE  INHABITANTS,  HAVE  NOT  HAD  THE  LIBERTY  AND 
PRIVILEGE  OF  ELECTING  AND  SENDING  ANY  KNIGHTS  AND 
BURGESSES,    OR    OTHERS,    TO    REPRESENT    THEM    IN    THE    HIGH 

COURT   OF   Parliament. 


WILLIAM   PITT 

Pitt's  qualifications  as  an  orator  were  moral  as  well  as  intel- 
lectual. He  had  a  lofty  command  of  sonorous  rhetoric.  But 
he  had  also  the  high  courage  and  unquenchable  spirit  before 
which  all  difficulties  disappear.  He  spoke  for  the  purpose  of 
removing  obstacles,  and  also  of  inspiring  the  ardour  by  which 
alone  they  could  be  removed.  Although  he  seldom  spoke 
outside  the  House  of  Commons,  the  effect  of  his  speeches  was 
felt  far  beyond  the  walls  of  Parliament.  It  was  not  merely 
because  they  were  his  that  they  succeeded.  The  influence  of 
his  energy  and  character  was  both  powerful  and  extensive. 
But  besides  that  he  possessed  the  art  of  making  the  House  of 
Commons  believe  that  the  country  was  safe  under  his  guidance, 
and  that  against  every  danger  he  would  provide  a  safeguard. 
Pitt's  astonishing  command  of  language  was  no  merely  verbal 
endowment.  He  would  have  been  a  singularly  capable 
debater  if  he  had  not  been  otherwise  qualified  as  a  statesman. 
No  point  in  an  argument  escaped  him.  Yet,  all  the  time  that 
he  was  dealing  with  objections,  and  replying  to  critics,  he  did 
not  for  a  moment  forget  that  he  must,  if  he  was  to  carry  out 
his  purposes,  inspire  his  hearers  with  the  confidence  he  felt 
himself.  Even  at  the  height  of  his  power  he  was  not  always 
successful,  and  he  was  unable  to  carry  Parliamentary  Reform, 
of  which,  till  the  French  Revolution,  he  continued  a  zealous 
advocate,  though  he  never  made  it  a  question  involving  the 
fate  of  his  government.  Not  once  was  he  driven  to  resign 
by  an  adverse  majority.  In  1785,  a  few  months  after  he 
became  Prime  Minister,  he  appealed  to  the  country,  which 
sustained  him.  In  1801  he  retired  for  a  time  from  office 
because  the  King  would  not  allow  him  to  propose  a  Catholic 
Emancipation  Bill.  He  would  have  established  free  trade 
with  Ireland  at  the  beginning  of  his  first  administration  if  he 

120 


PITT  121 

had  not  been  frustrated  by  the  Irish  Parliament,  where  he 
could  not  speak.  His  ascendency  at  St.  Stephen's,  due  to 
many  qualities,  cannot  be  separated  from  the  style  of  his 
speeches,  which  was  carefuUy  adapted  to  the  process  of  moral, 
as  well  as  intellectual,  persuasion. 

To  make  members  feel  as  he  felt  might  be  described  as  Pitt's 
great  object.  He  wished  not  simply  to  convince  them  by 
argument,  but  also  to  inspire  them  with  his  own  perfect 
confidence  in  the  wisdom  and  justice  of  his  cause.  It  might, 
perhaps,  be  said  that  in  some  respects  Pitt  was  stronger  in 
theory  than  in  practice.  His  financial  statement  of  1798, 
made  at  the  height  of  the  great  French  war,  is  a  philosophical 
disquisition  upon  pubUc  economy  which,  though  mainly 
designed  to  justify  the  income-tax,  has  permanent  interest 
and  value  to  students  as  well  as  to  statesmen.  Pitt's  adminis- 
trative efficiency  was  confined  to  the  days  of  peace,  and  con- 
sisted rather  in  the  choice  of  subordinates  than  in  the  provision 
of  means.  But  to  the  day  of  his  death  he  never  lost  his  hold 
upon  the  House  of  Commons.  There  he  could  always  rouse 
the  hopes  and  the  confidence  of  his  hearers  by  exhibiting  his 
o\\Ti  dauntless  resolution  in  appropriate  speech.  It  was  not 
that  he  always  carried  his  point.  Fox  prevented  him  from 
undertaking  hostilities  against  Russia  on  behalf  of  Turkey, 
when  Catherine  threatened  the  Crimea.  Fox  had  no  majority. 
Public  opinion  was  for  once  too  strong  for  Pitt,  even  in  the 
arena  of  his  triumphs,  and  the  citadel  of  his  power.  / 

But  it  is  not  by  a  single  instance  here  or  there  that  the 
position  of  a  great  statesman  in  the  House  of  Commons  can 
be  tested  or  weighed.  The  effect  of  Pitt's  oratory  must  be 
judged  by  the  results  which  it  enabled  him  to  accomplish 
throughout  his  Pariiamentary  career.  Of  these  the  greatest 
is  that  through  times  of  peace  and  times  of  war  he  could 
retain  the  confidence  of  the  House,  whatever  happened  out 
of  doors.  He  sometimes  had  to  explain  what  was  almost 
incapable   of  explanation.     He   had   to   confront   adroit   and 


122  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

skilful  debaters,  always  ready  to  take  advantage  of  any  error 
he  might  commit.  Yet  he  never  lost  his  hold  upon  his 
favourite  audience,  the  audience  which  best  understood  him 
and  which  he  best  understood.  His  unshaken  confidence  in 
the  ultimate  success  of  his  policy  communicated  itself  to  his 
hearers,  and  they  sustained  him  in  circumstances  which 
would  certainly  have  made  them  distrust  anybody  else.  His 
speeches  were  designed  and  constructed  not  so  much  to 
procure  the  triumph  of  a  particular  scheme  or  project  as  to 
quiet  all  scruples  about  the  effect  of  temporary  failure  or 
disaster  in  averting  the  final  result  of  a  carefully  premeditated 
design.  He  never  allowed  himself  to  appear  discouraged, 
and  therefore  he  succeeded  in  producing  upon  the  House  of 
Commons  an  impression  that  he  had  provided  for  whatever 
might  ensue.  A  superb  actor,  like  his  father,  he  knew  how  to 
make  the  best  use  of  all  his  gifts  in  presence  of  the  keenest 
criticism,  and  to  produce  just  the  feeling  of  exultant  trust  which 
he  endeavoured  to  inspire.  ,  Pitt  was  emphatically  a  man  of 
peace.  He  sincerely  desired,  for  the  sake  of  the  people,  the 
"material  progress  of  the  country,  and  to  introduce  a  satisfactory 
^Budget  gave  him  more  gratification  than  winning  a  pitched 
battle.  Though  idolised  by  Protectionists  and  Tories,  he  was 
a  Free  Trader  and  a  Whig.  It  is  all  the  more  wonderful  that, 
when  he  was  driven,  against  his  own  will,  into  a  war  with 
France  and  when  he  found  himself  confronted  with  difficulties 
he  was  powerless  to  surmount,  he  could  still  maintain  in 
Parliament  the  same  undaunted  haughtiness  of  demeanour, 
and  display  a  courageous  superiority  to  unfavourable  condi- 
tions, which  even  those  least  inclined  towards  his  policy  or 
methods  were  compelled  despite  themselves,  to  admire.  He 
was  by  no  means  exempt  from  despondency.  But,  whatever  he 
felt,  he  always  showed  in  Parliament  an  appearance  of  audacity 
and  vigour  which  animated  all  his  followers,  and  many  of  his 
opponents,  with  a  belief  that  he  must  in  the  long  run  succeed. 
The  career  of  Pitt  in  the  House  of  Commons  was  the  more 


PITT  123 

remarkable  because  he  had  very  little  experience  of  Opposition. 
He  was  almost  always  on  the  defensive.  Yet  he  not  only  held 
his  own  ;  he  acquired  such  an  ascendency  in  debate  that  his 
supremacy  almost  ceased  to  be  challenged.  He  did  not  take 
advantage  of  his  position  by  refusing  to  ioin  in  discussion. 
However  arduous  his  labours  might  be  outside  the  House, 
he  was  always  on  the  Treasury  Bench  if  the  Government 
were  criticised  or  attacked.  His  speeches  illustrate  the  way 
in  which  an  imperious  statesman  dominated  the  House  by 
mingled  argument  and  rhetoric.  Pitt  was  by  no  means  a 
Minister  to  the  taste  of  George  the  Third.  He  was  very  unUke 
Lord  North.  He  imposed  himself  upon  the  King  because  he 
was  the  one  man  whom  the  House  of  Commons  would  follow. 
What  then  was  the  secret  of  his  strength  ?  It  was  that  he 
knew  exactly  how  to  deal  with  a  miscellaneous  assembly, 
which  liked  to  be  treated  with  deference,  and  at  the  same  time 
to  be  led.  In  the  requisite  combination  of  qualities  no  man 
ever  equalled  Pitt.  When  he  failed,  it  was  because  the 
circumstances  were  such  that  no  man  could  have  succeeded. 
He  is,  however,  to  be  tested  as  a  debater  chiefly  by  the  first 
part  of  his  Ministerial  life.  Then  he  was  able  to  carry  out 
his  dehberate  policy  without  the  distraction  of  foreign  war. 
During  that  part  of  the  European  campaign  which  preceded 
the  Peace  of  Amiens  he  displayed  extraordinary  vigour. 
But  he  did  not  appreciate  the  nature  of  the  struggle  in 
which  he  was  engaged.  When  he  rose  to  power  on  the  ruins 
of  the  Coalition  in  1784,  he  made  his  way  by  sheer  force  of 
energy  and  ability  to  the  foremost  rank  in  the  State.  He 
could  only  retain  the  position  he  had  won  by  the  Constant  use 
of  those  gifts  through  which  he  had  risen  in  the  Parhamentary 
arena.  He  cultivated  the  art  of  debate  until  it  became  an 
instinct  ;  and  he  was  never  at  a  loss,  because  his  full  powers 
were  always  kept  ready  to  be  employed.  No  man  has  ever 
governed  by  speaking  as  Pitt  did.  His  oratory  is,  therefore,  > 
essentially  practical.      The  magnificent  displays  of  Fox  were 


124  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

essentially  critical.  His  force  was  directed  against  measures 
of~whic!r~Ke~drsapproved,  and  it  was  wielded  with  superb 
mastery.  But  Pitt  had  to  work  with  available  material, 
and  to  make  the  best  of  his  opportunities.  He  spoke  to 
get  his  Bill  carried,  or  his  vote  passed.  The  fine  and  pointed 
sayings  which  adorn  his  speeches  were  thrown  out  by  the 
way.  His  main  object  and  purport  were  invariably  practical. 
His  speeches  must  be  considered  with  reference  to  the 
end  which  the  orator  had  in  view.  That  is,  perhaps,  what 
Fox  meant  when  he  said  that  he  could  always  find  a  word, 
but  that  Pitt  could  always  find  the  word. 

Of  all  English  orators  Pitt  was  the  most  self-contained^ 
He  said  neither  more  nor  less  than  he  meant  to  say.  Regard- 
ing speech  as  an  instrument  of  government,  he  used  it  for 
practical  purposes  as  a  method  of  carrying  his  point.  He  is  a 
perfect  example  of  the  debater  who  made  debate  a  form  of 
action,  who  used  the  House  of  Commons  as  a  lever  for  moving 
the  world  outside.  The  peculiarity  of  his  speeches  is  that 
they  are  Parliamentary  and  yet  a  great  deal  more.  They 
cannot  be  appreciated  without  reference  to  the  particular 
circumstances  in  which  they  were  made,  although  their  style 
is  adapted  to  the  tone  and  temper  of  an  assembly  which  Pitt 
made  it  his  business  to  study  and  to  understand.  They  must, 
therefore,  always  be  considered  and  criticised  from  two  separate 
points  of  view.  There  is  their  general  merit  as  rhetorical 
literature,  and  their  especial  value  as  conducive  to  the  end 
which  Pitt  had  set  before  himself  at  the  time.  To  inspire 
confidence  was  no  doubt  always  his  object.  But  it  was  not 
his  way  to  leave  arguments  unanswered,  so  that  he  was  doubly 
occupied  with  confuting  objections  and  expounding  policy. 
Leaving  the  business  of  administration  to  his  colleagues,  he 
undertook  for  his  part  to  obtain  the  concurrence  of  the  House 
of  Commons  in  the  plans  of  the  Cabinet.  No  other  man  ever 
occupied  quite  the  same  position.  He  had  to  deal  with  all 
sorts  of  problems,  and  at  the  same  time  to  satisfy  a  critical 


PITT  125 

audience  that  they  were  being  adequately  solved.  His  ascen- 
dency in  Parliament  resulted  in  some  degree  from  early  training. 
But  it  was  brought  to  perfection  by  the  assiduous  practice  of 
an  art  so  delicate  as  to  be  scarcely  definable,  the  art  of  com- 
manding under  the  guise  of  persuasion.  Of  that  art  Pitt  was 
a  consummate  master.  He  knew  exactly  how  far  to  go,  and' 
when  to  stop.  He  made  his  hearers  feel  as  he  felt,  and  believe 
what  he  wished  them  to  beheve.  It  was  an  influence  entirely 
legitimate  in  its  source  and  scope,  for  the  authority  which  it 
implied  had  been  acquired  by  no  ignoble  means.  Pitt  carried 
his  hearers  with  him  because  he  appealed  at  once  to  their 
sentiments  and  their  intellects,  because  he  employed  simul- 
taneously the  resources  of  eloquence  and  reason.  Neither 
would  have  sufficed  without  the  other.  It  was  because  Pitt 
brought  both  to  bear  upon  the  attainment  of  his  purposes 
that  he  still  deserves  to  be  regarded  as  a  model  for  that  states- 
manlike oratory  which  combines  rhetorical  splendour  with 
practical  effect. 

Abolition  of  Slave  Trade, 

House  of  Commons,  April  2nd,  1792 

At  this  hour  in  the  morning  I  am  afraid.  Sir,  I  am  too  much 
exhausted  to  enter  so  fuUy  into  the  subject  before  the  com- 
mittee as  I  could  wish;  but  if  my  bodily  strength  is  in  any 
degree  equal  to  the  task,  I  feel  so  strongly  the  magnitude  of 
this  question,  that  I  am  extremely  earnest  to  deUver  my 
sentiments  which  I  rise  to  do  with  the  more  satisfaction,  because 
I  now  look  forward  to  the  issue  of  this  business  with 
considerable  hopes  of  success. 

The  debate  has  this  day  taken  a  turn,  which,  though  it  has 
produced  a  variety  of  new  suggestions,  has,  upon  the  whole, 
contracted  this  question  into  a  much  narrower  point  than  it 
was  ever  brought  into  before. 

I  cannot  say  that  I  quite  agree  with  the  right  honourable 
gentleman  over  the  way  ;  I  am  far  from  deploring  all  that 
has  been  said  by  my  two  honourable  friends.  I  rather  rejoice 
that  they  have  now  brought  this  subject  to  a  fair  issue — that 


126  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

something,  at  least,  is  already  gained,  and  that  the  question 
has  taken  altogether  a  new  course  this  night.  It  is  true  a 
difference  of  opinion  has  been  stated,  and  has  been  urged  with 
all  the  force  of  argument  that  could  be  given  to  it.  But  give 
me  leave  to  say  that  this  difference  has  been  urged  upon 
principles  very  far  removed  from  those  which  were  maintained 
by  the  opponents  of  my  honourable  friend  when  he  first  brought 
forward  his  motion.  There  are  very  few  of  those  who  have 
spoken  this  night  who  have  not  thought  it  their  duty  to  declare 
their  full  and  entire  concurrence  with  my  honourable  friend 
in  promoting  the  abolition  of  the  slave  trade,  as  their  ultimate 
object.  However  we  may  differ  as  to  the  time  and  manner 
of  it,  we  are  all  agreed  in  the  abolition  itself  ;  and  my  honour- 
able friends  have  expressed  their  agreement  in  this  sentiment 
with  that  sensibility  upon  the  subject  which  humanity  does 
most  undoubtedly  require.  I  do  not,  however,  think  they  yet 
perceive  what  are  the  necessary  consequences  of  their  own 
concession,  or  follow  up  their  own  principles  to  their  just 
conclusion. 

The  point  now  in  dispute  between  us  is  a  difference  merely 
as  to  the  period  of  time  at  which  the  abolition  of  the  slave- 
trade  ought  to  take  place.  I  therefore  congratulate  this  House, 
the  country,  and  the  world,  that  this  great  point  is  gained  ; 
that  one  may  now  consider  this  trade  as  having  received  its 
condemnation  ;  that  its  sentence  is  sealed  ;  that  this  curse 
of  mankind  is  seen  by  the  House  in  its  true  light ;  and  that  the 
greatest  stigma  on  our  national  character  which  ever  yet 
existed  is  about  to  be  removed  !  And,  Sir  (which  is  still 
more  important)  that  mankind,  I  trust,  in  general,  are  now 
likely  to  be  delivered  from  the  greatest  practical  evil  that  ever 
has  afflicted  the  human  race,  from  the  severest  and  most 
extensive  calamity  recorded  in  the  history  of  the  world  ! 

In  proceeding  to  give  my  reasons  for  concurring  with  my 
honourable  friend  in  his  motion,  I  shall  necessarily  advert  to 
those  topics  which  my  honourable  friends  near  me  have  touched 
upon  ;  and  which  they  stated  to  be  their  motives  for  preferring 
a  gradual,  and,  in  some  degree,  a  distant  abolition  of  the  slave- 
trade,  to  the  more  immediate  and  direct  measure  now  proposed 
to  you.  Beginning  as  I  do  with  declaring  that  in  this  respect 
I  differ  completely  from  my  right  honourable  friends  near  me,  I 
do  not,  however,  mean  to  say  that  I  differ  as  to  one  observation 


1>ITT  127 

which  has  been  pressed  rather  strongly  by  them.  If  they 
can  show  that  their  proposition  of  a  gradual  abolition  is  more 
likely  than  ours  to  secure  the  object  which  we  have  in  view — 
that  by  proceeding  gradually  we  shall  arrive  more  speedily 
at  our  end,  and  attain  it  with  more  certainty,  than  by  direct 
vote  immediately  to  abolish  : — If  they  can  show  to  the  satis- 
faction of  both  myself  and  the  committee  that  our  proposition 
has  more  the  appearance  of  a  speedy  abolition  than  the 
reality  of  it,  undoubtedly  they  wiU  in  this  case  make  a  con- 
vert of  me,  and  my  honourable  friend  who  moved  the  question  ; 
they  win  make  a  convert  of  every  man  among  us  who  looks 
to  this — which  I  trust  we  all  do — as  a  question  not  to  be  deter- 
mined by  theoretical  principles  or  enthusiastic  feeUngs,  but 
considers  the  practicabrhty  of  the  measure,  aiming  simply  to 
effect  his  object  in  the  shortest  time,  and  in  the  surest  possible 
manner. 

If,  however,  I  shall  be  able  to  shew  that  our  measure  pro- 
ceeds more  directly  to  its  object,  and  secures  it  with  more 
certainty,  and  within  a  less  distant  period,  and  that  the  slave 
trade  wiU  on  our  plan  be  abolished  sooner  than  on  his,  may  I 
not  then  hope  that  my  right  honourable  friends  will  be  as 
ready  to  adopt  our  proposition  as  we  should  in  the  other  case 
be  willing  to  accede  to  theirs  ? 

w  One  of  my  right  honourable  friends  has  stated  that  an  act  ^ 
passed  here  for  the  abolition  of  the  slave-trade,  would  not 
secure  its  abohtion.  Now,  Sir,  I  should  be  glad  to  know,  why 
an  act  of  the  British  legislature,  enforced  by  aU  those  sanctions 
which  we  have  undoubtedly  the  power  and  the  right  to  apply, 
is  not  to  be  effectual  ;  at  least  as  to  every  material  purpose  ? 
WiU  not  the  executive  power  have  the  same  appointment  of 
the  oihcers  and  the  courts  of  judicature,  by  which  aU  the 
causes  relating  to  this  subject  must  be  tried,  that  it  has  in  other 
cases  ?  Will  there  not  be  the  same  system  of  law  by  which  we 
now  maintain  a  monopoly  of  commerce  ?  If  the  same  law. 
Sir,  be  applied  to  the  prohibition  of  the  slave-trade  which  is 
applied  in  the  case  of  other  contraband  commerce,  with  all 
the  same  means  of  the  country  to  back  it,  I  am  at  a  loss  to 
know  why  the  actual  and  total  abolition  is  not  as  likely  to  be 
effected  in  this  way  as  by  any  plan  or  project  of  my  honour- 
able friends  for  bringing  about  a  gradual  termination  of  it. 
But  my  observation  is  extremely  fortified  by  what  feU  from 


128  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

my  honourable  friend  who  spoke  last ;  he  has  told  you,  Sir, 
that  if  you  will  have  patience  with  it  for  a  few  years,  the  slave- 
trade  must  drop  of  itself,  from  the  increasing  dearness  of  the 
commodity  imported,  and  the  increasing  progress,  on  the  other 
hand,  of  internal  population.  It  is  true,  then,  that  the  impor- 
tations are  so  expensive  and  disadvantageous  already,  that 
the  internal  population  is  ever  now  becoming  a  cheaper  resource. 
I  ask,  then,  if  you  leave  to  the  importer  no  means  of  importation 
but  smuggling,  and  if,  besides  all  the  present  disadvantages, 
you  load  him  with  all  the  charges  and  hazards  of  the  smuggler, 
by  taking  care  that  the  laws  against  smuggling  are  in  this  case 
watchfully  and  vigorously  enforced,  is  there  any  danger  of  any 
considerable  supply  of  fresh  slaves  being  poured  into  the 
islands  through  this  channel  ?  And  is  there  any  real  ground 
of  fear,  because  a  few  slaves  may  have  been  smuggled  in  or 
out  of  these  islands,  that  a  bill  will  be  useless  and  ineffectual 
on  any  such  ground  ?  The  question  under  these  circumstances 
will  not  bear  a  dispute. 

Perhaps,  however,  my  honourable  friends  may  take  up 
another  ground,  and  say,  "  It  is  true  your  measure  would  shut 
out  further  importations  more  immediately  ;  but  we  do  not 
mean  to  shut  them  out  immediately.  We  think  it  right,  on 
grounds  of  general  expediency,  that  they  should  not  be  imme- 
diately shut  out."  Let  us  therefore  now  come  to  this  question 
of  the  expediency  of  making  the  abolition  distant  and  gradual, 
rather  than  immediate. 

The  argument  of  expediency,  in  my  opinion,  like  every  other 
argument  in  this  disquisition,  will  not  justify  the  continuance 
of  the  slave-trade  for  one  unnecessary  hour.  Supposing  it  to 
be  in  our  power  (which  I  have  shown  it  is)  to  enforce  the 
prohibition  from  the  present  time.  The  expediency  of  doing 
it  is  to  me  so  clear,  that  if  I  went  on  this  principle  alone,  I 
should  not  feel  a  moment's  hesitation.  What  is  the  argument 
of  expediency  stated  on  the  other  side  ?  It  is  doubted  whether 
the  deaths  and  births  in  the  islands  are  as  yet  so  nearly  equal 
as  to  ensure  the  keeping  up  of  a  sufficient  stock  of  labourers  ; 
in  answer  to  this,  I  took  the  liberty  of  mentioning,  in  a  former 
year,  what  appeared  to  me  to  be  the  state  of  the  population 
at  that  time.  My  observations  were  taken  from  documents 
which  we  have  reason  to  judge  authentic  and  which  carried 
on  the  face  of  them  the  conclusions  I  then  stated  ;  they  were 


PITT  129 

the  clear,  simple,  and  obvious  result  of  a  careful  examination 
which  I  made  into  this  subject,  and  any  gentleman  who  will 
take  the  same  pains  may  arrive  at  the  same  degree  of  satisfaction. 

These  calculations,  however,  applied  to  a  period  of  time  that 
is  now  four  or  five  years  past.  The  births  were  then,  in  the 
general  view  of  them,  nearly  equal  to  the  deaths  ;  and  as  the 
state  of  population  was  shown,  by  a  considerable  retrospect, 
to  be  regularly  increasing,  an  excess  of  births  must  before  this 
time  have  taken  place. 

Another  observation  has  been  made  as  to  the  disproportion 
of  the  sexes  ;  this,  however,  is  a  disparity  which  existed  in 
any  material  degree  only  in  former  years  ;  it  is  a  disparity  of 
which  the  slave-trade  has  been  itself  the  cause  ;  which  will 
gradually  diminish  as  the  slave-trade  diminishes,  and  must 
entirely  cease,  if  the  trade  shall  be  abolished  ;  but  which, 
nevertheless,  is  made  the  very  plea  for  its  continuance.  I 
believe  this  disproportion  of  the  sexes,  taking  the  whole 
number  in  the  islands,  Creole  as  well  as  imported  Africans, 
the  latter  of  whom  occasion  all  the  disproportion,  is  not  now 
by  any  means  considerable. 

But,  Sir,  I  also  showed  that  the  general  mortality  which 
turned  the  balance  so  as  to  make  the  deaths  appear  more 
numerous  than  the  births,  arose  too  from  the  imported  Afghans, 
who  die  in  extraordinary  numbers  in  the  seasoning.  If,  there- 
fore, the  importation  of  negroes  should  cease,  every  one  of  the 
causes  of  mortahty,  which  I  have  now  stated,  would  cease 
also.  Nor  can  I  conceive  any  reason  why  the  present  number 
of  labourers  should  not  maintain  itself  in  the  West  Indies, 
except  it  be  from  some  artificial  cause,  some  fault  in  the  islands  ; 
such  as  the  impolicy  of  their  governors,  or  the  cruelty  of  the 
managers  and  officers,  whom  they  employ. 

I  wiU  not  reiterate  all  that  I  said  at  the  time,  or  go  through 
island  by  island.  It  is  true,  there  is  a  difference  in  the  ceded 
islands  ;  and  I  state  them  possibly  to  be,  in  some  respects, 
an  excepted  case.  But  if  we  are  to  enter  into  the  subject  of 
the  mortality  in  clearing  new  lands,  this.  Sir,  is  undoubtedly 
another  question  ;  the  mortahty  here  is  tenfold  ;  and  this  is 
to  be  considered,  not  as  the  carrying  on  as  a  trade,  but  as  the 
setting  on  foot  of  a  slave-trade  for  the  purpose  of  peopling  the 
colony  ;  a  measure  which  I  think  will  not  now  be  maintained. 
I  therefore  desire  gentlemen  to   teU   me   fairly,  whether  the 

9— (2170) 


130  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

period  they  look  to  is  not  now  arrived  ?  whether,  at  this  hour, 
the  West  Indies  may  not  be  declared  to  have  actually  attained 
a  state  in  which  they  can  maintain  their  population  ?  and  upon 
the  answer  I  must  necessarily  receive  I  think  I  could  safely 
rest  the  whole  of  the  question. 

One  honourable  gentleman  has  rather  ingeniously  observed 
that  one  or  other  of  these  two  assertions  of  ours  must  neces- 
sarily be  false  ;  that  either  the  population  must  be  decreasing, 
which  we  deny  ;  or,  if  the  population  is  increasing,  that  the 
slaves  must  be  perfectly  well  treated  (this  being  the  cause  of 
such  population),  which  we  deny  also.  That  the  population  is 
rather  increasing  than  otherwise,  and  also  that  the  general 
treatment  is  by  no  means  so  good  as  it  ought  to  be,  are  both 
points  which  have  been  separately  proved  by  different  evidences ; 
nor  are  these  two  points  so  entirely  incompatible.  The  ill- 
treatment  must  be  very  great  indeed,  in  order  to  diminish 
materially  the  population  of  any  race  of  people.  That  it  is  not 
so  extremely  great  as  to  do  this,  I  will  admit.  I  will  even  admit, 
if  you  please,  that  this  charge  may  possibly  have  been  some- 
times exaggerated  ;  and  I  certainly  think  that  it  applies  less 
and  less  as  we  come  nearer  to  the  present  time. 

But  let  us  see  how  this  contradiction  of  ours,  as  it  is  thought, 
really  stands,  and  how  this  explanation  of  it  will  completely 
settle  our  minds  on  the  point  in  question.  Do  the  slaves 
diminish  in  numbers  ?  It  can  be  nothing  but  ill-treatment 
that  causes  the  diminution.  This  ill-treatment  the  abohtion 
must  and  will  restrain.  In  this  case,  therefore,  we  ought  to 
vote  for  the  abolition.  On  the  other  hand,  Do  you  choose  to 
say  that  the  slaves  clearly  increase  in  numbers  ?  Then  you 
want  no  importations,  and,  in  this  case,  also,  you  may  safely  vote 
for  the  abolition.  Or,  if  you  choose  to  say,  as  the  third  and  only 
case  which  can  be  put  and  which,  perhaps,  is  nearest  to  the 
truth,  that  the  population  is  nearly  stationary,  and  the  treat- 
ment neither  so  bad  nor  so  good  as  it  might  be  ;  then  surely, 
Sir,  it  will  not  be  denied  that  this  of  all  others  is,  on  each  of 
the  two  grounds,  the  proper  period  for  stopping  further  sup- 
plies ;  for  your  population,  which  you  own  is  already  stationary, 
willthus  be  made  undoubtedly  to  increase  from  the  births, 
and  the  good  treatment  of  your  present  slaves,  which  I  am 
now  supposing  is  but  very  moderate,  will  be  necessarily 
improved   also   by   the  same   measure  x)f  abolition.      I   say. 


PITT  131 

therefore,  that  these  propositions,  contradictory  as  they  may 
be  represented,  are  in  truth  not  at  all  inconsistent,  but  even 
come  in  aid  of  each  other,  and  lead  to  a  conclusion  that  is 
decisive.  And  let  it  be  always  remembered  that  in  this  branch 
of  my  argument  I  have  only  in  view  the  well-being  of  the  West 
Indies,  and  do  not  now  ground  anything  on  the  African  part 
of  the  question. 

But,  Sir,  I  may  carry  these  observations  respecting  the 
islands  much  further.  It  is  within  the  power  of  the  colonists 
(and  is  it  not  then  their  indispensable  duty  ?)  to  apply  them- 
selves to  the  correction  of  those  various  abuses,  by  which  the 
population  is  restrained.  The  most  important  consequences 
may  be  expected  to  attend  colonial  regulations  for  this  purpose. 
With  the  improvement  of  internal  population,  the  condition  of 
every  negro  wiU  improve  also  ;  his  liberty  wiU  advance,  or  at 
least  he  wiU  be  approaching  to  a  state  of  liberty.  Nor  can 
you  increase  the  happiness,  or  extend  the  freedom  of  the  negro, 
without  adding  in  an  equal  degree  to  the  safety  of  the  islands, 
and  of  all  their  inhabitants.  Thus,  Sir,  in  the  place  of  slavey 
who  naturally  have  an  interest  directly  opposite  to  that  of 
their  masters,  and  are  therefore  viewed  by  them  with  an  eye 
of  constant  suspicion,  ynvi_wi]1  rrpata^  body  of  valuable  citizens^ 
and  subjects^  forming  a  part  of  the  same  community,  Tiavmg. 
cTcominoirinterest  with  their  superiors,  in  the  security  and 

prosperity  of  the  whole: ■ 

And,  here  let  me  add,  that  in  the  proportion  as  you  increase 
the  happiness  of  these  unfortunate  beings,  you  will  undoubtedly 
increase  in  effect  the  quantity  of  their  labour  also.  Gentlemen 
talk  of  the  diminution  of  the  labour  of  the  islands  !  I  will 
venture  to  assert  that,  even  if  in  consequence  of  the  abolition 
there  were  to  be  some  decrease  in  the  number  of  hands,  the 
quantity  of  work  done,  supposing  the  condition  of  the  slaves 
to  improve,  would  by  no  means  diminish  in  the  same  propor- 
tion ;  perhaps  would  be  far  from  diminishing  at  all.  For  if 
you  restore  to  this  degraded  race  the  true  feelings  of  men, 
if  you  take  them  out  from  among  the  order  of  brutes,  and  place 
them  on  a  level  with  the  rest  of  the  human  species,  they  will 
then  work  with  that  energy  which  is  natural  to  men,  and  their 
labour  will  be  productive,  in  a  thousand  ways,  above  what  it 
has  yet  been  ;  as  the  labour  of  a  man  is  always  more  productive 
than  that  of  a  mere  brute. 


132  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

It  generally  happens  that  in  every  bad  cause  some  informa- 
tion arises  out  of  the  evidence  of  its  defenders  themselves 
which  serves  to  expose  in  one  part  or  other  the  weakness  of 
their  defence.  It  is  the  characteristic  of  such  a  cause  that  if 
it  be  at  all  gone  into,  even  by  its  own  supporters,  it  is  liable 
to  be  ruined  by  the  contradictions  in  which  those  who  maintain 
it  are  for  ever  involved. 

The  committee  of  the  Privy  Council  of  Great  Britain  sent 
over  certain  queries  to  the  West  India  islands,  with  a  view  of 
elucidating  the  present  subject ;  and  they  particularly  enquired 
whether  the  negroes  had  any  days  or  hours  allotted  to  them 
in  which  they  might  work  for  themselves.  The  assemblies 
in  their  answers,  with  an  air  of  great  satisfaction,  state  the 
labour  of  the  slaves  to  be  moderate,  and  the  West  India  system 
to  be  well  calculated  to  promote  the  domestic  happiness  of 
the  slaves.  They  add,  "  that  proprietors  are  not  compelled 
by  law  to  allow  their  slaves  any  part  of  the  six  working  days 
of  the  week  for  them^-but  it  is  the  general  practice  to  allow 
them  one  afternoon  in  every  week  out  of  croptime,  which, 
with  such  hours  as  they  chose  to  work  on  Sundays,  is  time 
amply  sufficient  for  their  own  purposes."  Now,  therefore, 
will  the  negroes,  or,  I  may  rather  say,  do  the  negroes  work 
for  their  own  emolument  ?  I  beg  the  committee's  attention 
to  this  point.  The  assembly  of  Grenada  proceeds  to  state — 
I  have  their  own  words  for  it — "  That  though  the  negroes  are 
allowed  the  afternoons  of  only  one  day  in  every  week,  they 
will  do  as  much  work  in  that  afternoon,  when  employed  for 
their  own  benefit,  as  in  the  whole  day  when  employed  in  their 
master's  service." 

Now,  Sir,  I  will  desire  you  to  burn  all  my  calculations  ;  to 
disbelieve  if  you  please,  every  word  I  have  said  on  the  present 
state  of  the  population  ;  nay,  I  will  admit,  for  the  sake  of  argu- 
ment, that  the  numbers  are  decreasing,  and  the  productive 
labour  at  present  insufficient  for  the  cultivation  of  those 
countries  ;  and  I  will  then  ask  whether  the  increase  in  the 
quantity  of  labour  which  is  reasonably  to  be  expected  from 
the  improved  condition  of  the  slaves  is  not,  by  the  admission 
of  the  islands  themselves,  by  their  admission  not  merely  of  an 
argument  but  a  fact,  far  more  than  sufficient  to  counterbalance 
any  decrease  which  can  be  rationally  apprehended  from  a 
defective  state  of  their  population  ?     Why,  Sir,  a  negro,  if 


PITT  133 

he  works  for  himself,  and  not  for  a  master,  will  do  double 
work  !  This  is  their  own  account.  If  you  will  believe  the 
planters,  if  you  will  believe  the  legislature  of  the  islands,  the 
productive  labour  of  the  colonies  would,  in  case  the  negroes 
worked  as  free  labourers  instead  of  slaves,  be  literally  doubled. 
Half  the  present  labourers,  on  this  supposition,  would  suffice 
for  the  whole  cultivation  of  our  islands  on  the  present  scale. 
I  therefore  confidently  ask  the  House  whether,  in  considering 
the  whole  of  this  question,  we  may  not  fairly  look  forward  to 
an  improvement  in  the  condition  of  these  unhappy  and 
degraded  beings,  not  only  as  an  event  desirable  on  the  ground 
of  humanity  and  political  prudence,  but  also  as  a  means  of 
increasing,  very  considerably  indeed  (even  without  any  in- 
creasing population),  the  productive  industry  of  the  islands  ? 
When  gentlemen  are  so  nicely  balancing  the  past  and  future 
means  of  cultivating  the  plantations,  let  me  request  them  to 
put  this  argument  into  the  scale  ;  and  the  more  they  consider 
it,  the  more  will  they  be  satisfied,  that  both  the  solidity  of  the 
principle  which  I  have  stated,  and  the  facts  which  I  have  just 
quoted  in  the  very  words  of  the  colonial  legislature,  wiU  bear 
me  out  in  every  inference  I  have  drawn.  I  think  they  will 
perceive  also  that  it  is  the  undeniable  duty  of  this  House,  on 
the  grounds  of  true  policy,  immediately  to  sanction  and  carry 
into  effect  that  system  which  ensures  these  important  advan- 
tages ;  in  addition  to  all  those  other  inestimable  blessings 
which  follow  in  their  train. 

If,  therefore,  the  argument  of  expediency  as  apptying  to  thei 
West  India  islands  is  the  test  by  which  this  question  is  to  be| 
tried,  I  trust  I  have  now  established  this  proposition,  namely, ' 
that  whatever  tends  most  speedily  and  effectually  to  meliorate 
the  condition  of  the  slaves  is,  undoubtedly  on  the  ground  of 
expediency,  leaving  justice  out  of  the  question,  the  main* 
object  to  be  pursued. 

That  the  immediate  abolition  of  the  slave-trade  will  most 
eminently  have  this  effect,  and  that  it  is  the  only  measure 
from  which  this  effect  can  in  any  considerable  degree  be  expected, 
are  points  to  which  I  shaU  presently  come  ;  but  before  I 
enter  upon  them  let  me  notice  one  or  two  further  circumstances. 

We  are  told  (and  by  respectable  and  well-informed  persons) 
that  the  purchase  of  new  negroes  has  been  injurious  instead 
of  profitable  to  the  planters  themselves  ;   so  large  a  proportion 


134  t^AMOUS   SPEECHES 

of  these  unhappy  wretches  being  found  to  perish  in  the  season- 
ing. Writers  well  versed  in  this  subject  have  even  advised 
that,  in  order  to  remove  the  temptation  which  the  slave-trade 
offers,  to  expend  large  sums  in  this  injudicious  way,  the  door 
of  importation  should  be  shut.  This  very  plan  which  we  now 
propose,  the  mischief  of  which  is  represented  to  be  so  great 
as  to  outweigh  so  many  other  momentous  considerations,  has 
actually  been  recommended  by  some  of  the  best  authorities 
as  a  plan  highly  requisite  to  be  adopted  on  the  very  principle 
of  advantage  to  the  islands  ;  nay,  not  merely  on  that  principle 
of  general  and  political  advantage  on  which  I  have  already 
touched,  but  for  the  advantage  of  the  very  individuals  who 
would  otherwise  be  most  forward  in  purchasing  slaves.  On 
the  part  of  West  Indiana,  it  is  urged,  "  The  planters  are  in 
debt ;  they  are  already  distressed  ;  if  you  stop  the  slave- 
trade,  they  will  be  ruined."  Mr.  Long,  the  celebrated  historian 
of  Jamaica,  recommends  the  stopping  of  importations,  as  a 
recipe  for  enabling  the  plantations  which  are  embarrassed 
to  get  out  of  debt.  I  will  quote  his  words.  Speaking  of  the 
usurious  terms  on  which  money  is  often  borrowed  for  the 
purchase  of  fresh  slaves,  he  advises  "  the  laying  of  a  duty 
equal  to  a  prohibition  on  all  negroes  imported  for  the  space  of 
four  or  five  years,  except  for  re-exportation."  "  Such  a  law," 
he  proceeds  to  say,  "  would  be  attended  with  the  following 
good  consequences.  It  would  put  an  immediate  stop  to  these 
extortions  ;  it  would  enable  the  planter  to  retrieve  his  affairs 
by  preventing  him  from  running  in  debt,  either  by  renting 
or  purchasing  negroes  ;  it  would  render  such  recruits  less 
necessary,  by  the  redoubled  care  he  would  be  obliged  to  take 
of  his  present  stock,  the  preservation  of  their  lives  and  health  ; 
and,  lastly,  it  would  raise  the  value  of  the  negroes  in  the  island. 
A  North-American  province,  by  this  prohibition  alone  for  a 
few  years,  from  being  deeply  plunged  in  debt,  has  become 
independent,  rich,  and  flourishing." 

On  the  authority  of  Mr.  Long  I  rest  the  question,  whether 
the  prohibition  of  further  importations  is  that  rash,  impolitic, 
and  completely  ruinous  measure,  which  it  is  so  confidently 
declared  to  be  with  respect  to  our  West  Indian  plantations. 

I  do  not,  however,  mean,  in  thus  treating  this  branch  of  the 
subject,  absolutely  to  exclude  the  question  of  indemnification 
on   the   supposition   of  possible   disadvantages   affecting   the 


PITT  135 

West  Indies  through  the  abohtion  of  the  slave-trade.  But 
when  gentlemen  set  up  a  claim  of  compensation  merely  on 
those  general  allegations,  which  are  all  that  I  have  yet  heard 
from  them,  I  can  only  answer,  let  them  produce  their  case  in 
a  distinct  and  specific  form  ;  and  if  upon  any  practicable 
or  reasonable  grounds  it  shall  claim  consideration,  it  wiU  then 
be  time  enough  for  Parliament  to  decide  upon  it. 

I  now  come  to  another  circumstance  of  great  weight,  con- 
nected with  this  part  of  the  question.  I  mean  the  danger  to 
which  the  Islands  are  exposed  from  the  negroes  who  are  newly 
imported.  This,  Sir,  like  the  observation  which  I  lately  made, 
is  no  mere  speculation  of  ours,  for  here  again  I  refer  you  to  Mr. 
Long,  the  historian  of  Jamaica.  He  treats  particularly  of 
the  dangers  to  be  dreaded  from  the  introduction  of  Coroman- 
tine  negroes  ;  an  appellation  under  with  are  comprised  several 
descriptions  of  negroes  obtained  on  the  Gold  Coast,  whose 
native  country  is  not  exactly  known,  and  who  are  purchased 
in  a  variety  of  markets,  having  been  brought  from  some 
distance  inland.  With  a  view  of  preventing  insurrections, 
he  advises  that  "  by  laying  a  duty  equal  to  a  prohibition, 
no  more  of  these  Coromantines  should  be  bought ;  "  and  after 
noticing  one  insurrection  which  happened  through  their 
means,  he  tells  you  of  another  in  the  following  year,  in  which 
thirty-three  Coromantines,  "  most  of  whom  had  been  newly 
imported,  suddenly  rose,  and  in  the  space  of  an  hour  murdered 
and  wounded  no  less  than  nineteen  white  persons." 

To  the  authority  of  Mr.  Long,  both  in  this  and  other 
parts  of  his  work,  I  may  add  the  recorded  opinion  of  the  com- 
mittee of  the  House  of  Assembly  of  Jamaica  itself  ;  who,  in 
consequence  of  a  rebellion  among  the  slaves,  were  appointed  to 
enquire  into  the  best  means  of  preventing  future  insurrections. 
The  committee  reported,  "  That  the  rebellion  had  originated 
(like  most  or  all  others)  with  the  Coromantines  ;  and  they 
proposed  that  a  bill  should  be  brought  in  for  laying  a  higher 
duty  on  the  importation  of  these  particular  negroes,"  which 
was  intended  to  operate  as  a  prohibition. 

But  the  danger  is  not  confined  to  the  importation  of  Coro- 
mantines. Mr.  Long,  carefully  investigating  as  he  does  the 
causes  of  such  frequent  insurrections,  particularly  at  Jamaica, 
accounts  for  them  from  the  greatness  of  its  general  importations. 

"  In  two  and  a  half  years,"  says  he,  "  27,000  negroes  have 


136  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

been  imported."  *'  No  wonder  we  have  rebellions  !  Twenty- 
seven  thousand  in  two  years  and  a  half  !  "  Why,  Sir,  I  believe 
that  in  some  late  years  there  have  been  as  many  imported 
into  the  same  island  within  the  same  period  ;  surely,  Sir, 
when  gentlemen  talk  so  vehemently  of  the  safety  of  the 
islands  and  charge  us  with  being  so  indifferent  to  it ;  when  they 
speak  of  the  calamities  of  St.  Domingo,  and  of  similar  dangers 
impending  over  their  own  heads  at  the  present  hour,  it  ill 
becomes  them  to  be  the  persons  who  are  crying  out  for  further 
importations.  It  ill  becomes  them  to  charge  upon  us  the  crime 
of  stirring  up  insurrection — upon  us  who  are  only  adopting  the 
very  principles  which  Mr.  Long — which  in  no  part  even  the 
legislature  of  Jamaica  itself,  laid  down  in  the  time  of  danger, 
with  an  avowed  view  to  the  prevention  of  any  such  calamity. 
The  House,  I  am  sure,  will  easily  believe  it  is  no  small 
satisfaction  to  me,  that  among  the  many  arguments  for  pro- 
hibiting the  slave-trade  which  crowd  upon  my  mind,  the  security 
of  our  West  India  possessions  against  internal  commotions, 
as  well  as  foreign  enemies,  is  among  the  most  prominent  and 
most  forcible.  And  here  let  me  apply  to  my  two  right  honour- 
able friends,  and  ask  them,  whether  in  this  part  of  the  argu- 
ment they  do  not  see  reason  for  immediate  abolition  !  Why 
should  you  any  longer  import  into  those  countries  that  which 
is  the  very  seed  of  insurrection  and  rebellion  ?  Why  should 
you  persist  in  introducing  those  latent  principles  of  conflagra- 
tion, which,  if  they  should  once  burst  forth,  may  annihilate 
in  a  single  day  the  industry  of  a  hundred  years  ?  Why  will 
you  subject  yourselves,  with  open  eyes,  to  the  evident  and 
imminent  risk  of  a  calamity  which  may  throw  you  back  a 
whole  century  in  your  profits,  in  your  cultivation,  in  your 
progress  to  the  emancipation  of  your  slaves  ?  and  disappointing 
at  once  every  one  of  these  golden  expectations,  may  retard 
not  only  the  accomplishment  of  that  happy  system  which  I 
have  attempted  to  describe,  but  may  cut  off  even  your  oppor- 
tunity of  taking  any  one  introductory  step  ?  Let  us  begin 
from  this  time  !  Let  us  not  commit  these  important  interests 
to  any  further  hazard  !  Let  us  prosecute  this  great  object 
from  this  very  hour  ;  Let  us  vote  that  the  abolition  of  the  slave- 
trade  shall  be  immediate,  and  not  left  to  I  know  not  what 
future  time  or  contingency  !  Will  my  right  honourable  friends 
answer  for  the  safety  of  the  islands  during  any  imaginable 


PITT  137 

intervening  period  ?  or  do  they  think  that  any  little  advan- 
tages of  the  kind  which  they  state  can  have  any  weight  in 
that  scale  of  expediency  in  which  this  great  question  ought 
undoubtedly  to  be  tried  ? 

Thus  stated,  and  thus  alone,  Sir,  can  it  be  truly  stated, 
to  what  does  the  whole  of  my  right  honourable  friend's  argu- 
ments, on  the  head  of  expediency,  amount  ?  It  amounts  but 
to  this  : — The  colonies  on  the  one  hand  would  have  to  struggle 
with  some  few  difficulties  and  disadvantages  at  the  first,  for 
the  sake  of  obtaining  on  the  other  hand  immediate  security 
to  their  leading  interests  ;  of  ensuring.  Sir,  even  their  own 
political  existence,  and  for  the  sake  also  of  immediately  com- 
mencing that  system  of  progressive  improvement  in  the  con- 
dition of  the  slaves  which  is  necessary  to  raise  them  from  the 
state  of  brutes  to  that  of  rational  beings,  but  which  never  can 
begin  until  the  introduction  of  these  new  disaffected  and 
dangerous  Africans  into  the  same  gangs,  shall  have  been 
stopped. 

If  any  argument  can  in  the  slightest  degree  justify  the 
severity  that  is  now  so  generally  practised  in  the  treatment 
of  the  slaves,  it  must  be  the  introduction  of  these  Africans. 
It  is  the  introduction  of  these  Africans  that  renders  aU  ideas 
of  emancipation  for  the  present  so  chimerical ;  and  the  very 
mention  of  it  so  dreadful.  It  is  the  introduction  of  these 
Africans  that  keeps  down  the  condition  of  aU  plantation 
negroes.  Whatever  system  of  treatment  is  deemed  necessary 
by  the  planters  to  be  adopted  towards  these  new  Africans, 
extends  itself  to  the  other  slaves  also  ;  instead,  therefore,  of 
deferring  the  hour  when  you  finally  put  an  end  to  importation, 
vainly  purposing  that  the  condition  of  your  present  slaves 
should  previously  be  mended,  you  must,  in  the  very  first 
instance,  stop  your  importations,  if  you  hope  to  introduce 
any  rational  or  practicable  plan,  either  of  gradual  emancipa- 
tion, or  present  general  improvement.  Having  now  done 
with  this  question  of  expediency  as  affecting  the  islands,  I 
come  next  to  a  proposition  advanced  by  my  right  honourable 
friend  which  appeared  to  intimate  that  on  account  of  some 
patrimonial  rights  of  the  West  Indians,  the  prohibition  of  the 
slave-trade  might  be  considered  as  an  invasion  on  their  legal 
inheritance. 

Now,  in  answer  to  this  proposition,  I  must  make  two  or  three 


138  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

remarks,  which  I  think  my  right  honourable  friend  will  find 
some  considerable  difficulty  in  answering.  First,  I  observe 
that  his  argument,  if  it  be  worth  anything,  applies  just  as  much 
to  gradual  as  immediate  abolition.  I  have  no  doubt  that,  at 
whatever  period  he  should  be  disposed  to  say  the  abolition 
should  actually  take  place,  this  defence  will  equally  be  set  up  ; 
for  it  certainly  is  just  as  good  an  argument  against  an  abolition 
seven  or  seventy  years  hence  as  against  an  abolition  at  this 
moment.  It  supposes  we  have  no  right  whatever  to  stop  the 
importations ;  and  even  though  the  disadvantages  to  our 
plantations,  which  some  gentlemen  suppose  to  attend  the 
measure  of  immediate  abolition,  should  be  admitted  gradually 
to  lessen  by  the  lapse  of  a  few  years,  yet  in  point  of  principle, 
the  absence  of  all  right  of  interference  would  remain  the  same. 
My  right  honourable  friend,  therefore,  I  am  sure  will  not 
press  an  argument  not  less  hostile  to  his  proposition  than  to 
ours.  But  let  us  investigate  the  foundation  of  this  objection, 
and  I  will  commence  what  I  have  to  say  by  putting  a  question 
to  my  right  honourable  friend.  It  is  chiefly  on  the  presumed 
ground  of  our  being  bound  by  a  Parliamentary  sanction 
heretofore  given  to  the  African  slave-trade  that  this  argument 
against  the  abolition  is  vested.  Does  then  my  right  honourable 
friend,  or  does  any  man  in  this  House,  think  that  the  slave- 
trade  has  received  any  such  Parliamentary  sanction  as  must 
place  it  more  out  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  legislature  for  ever 
after  than  the  other  branches  of  our  national  commerce  ?  I 
ask,  is  there  any  one  regulation  of  any  part  of  our  commerce 
which,  if  this  argument  be  valid,  may  not  equally  be  objected 
to  on  the  ground  of  its  affecting  some  man's  patrimony,  some 
man's  property,  or  some  man's  expectation  ?  Let  it  never  be 
forgotten  that  the  argument  I  am  canvassing  would  be  just 
as  strong  if  the  possession  affected  were  small  and  the  pos- 
sessors humble  ;  for  on  every  principle  of  justice  the  property 
of  any  single  individual,  or  small  numbers  of  individuals,  is  as 
sacred  as  that  of  the  great  body  of  West  Indians.  Justice 
ought  to  extend  her  protection  with  rigid  impartiality  to 
the  rich  and  to  the  poor,  to  the  powerful  and  to  the  humble. 
If  this  be  the  case,  in  what  a  situation  does  my  right  honourable 
friend's  argument  place  the  legislature  of  Britain  ?  What 
room  is  left  for  their  interference  in  the  regulation  of  any  part 
of  our  commerce  ?     It  is  scarcely  possible  to  lay  a  duty  on  any 


.     PITT  139 

one  article,  which  may  not,  when  first  imposed,  be  said  in  some 
way  to  affect  the  property  of  individuals,  and  even  of  some 
entire  classes  of  the  community.  If  the  laws  respecting  the 
slave-trade  imply  a  contract  for  its  perpetual  continuance,  I 
will  venture  to  say  there  does  not  pass  a  year  without  some 
Act  equally  pledging  the  faith  of  Parliament  to  the  perpetuating 
of  some  other  branch  of  commerce.  In  short,  I  repeat  my 
observation,  that  no  new  tax  can  be  imposed,  much  less  can 
any  prohibitory^  duty  be  ever  laid  on  any  branch  of  trade,  that 
has  before  been  regulated  by  Parhament,  if  this  principle  be 
once  admitted. 

Before  I  refer  to  the  Acts  of  Parliament  by  which  the  public 
faith  is  said  to  be  pledged,  let  me  remark  also  that  a  contract 
for  the  continuance  of  the  slave-trade  must,  on  the  principles 
which  I  shall  presently  insist  on,  have  been  void,  even  from 
the  beginning  ;  for  if  this  trade  is  an  outrage  upon  justice, 
and  only  another  name  for  fraud,  robbery  and  murder,  will 
any  man  urge  that  the  legislature  could  possibly  by  any 
pledge  whatever  incur  the  obhgation  of  being  an  accessory, 
or  I  may  even  say  a  principal,  in  the  commission  of  such 
enormities,  by  sanctioning  their  continuance  ?  As  weU  might 
an  individual  think  himself  bound  by  a  promise  to  commit  an 
assassination.  I  am  confident  gentlemen  must  see  that  our 
proceedings  on  such  grounds  would  infringe  all  the  principles 
of  law,  and  subvert  the  very  foundation  of  morality. 

Let  us  now  see  how  far  the  Acts  themselves  show  that  there 
is  this  sort  of  Parliamentary  pledge  to  continue  the  African 
slave-trade.  The  Act  of  23  Geo.  II.  c.  31,  is  that  by  which 
we  are  supposed  to  be  boimd  up  by  contract  to  sanction  all 
those  horrors  now  so  incontrovertibly  proved.  How  sur- 
prised then.  Sir,  must  the  House  be  to  find  that  by  a  clause 
of  their  very  Act  some  of  these  outrages  are  expressly  for- 
bidden !  It  says,  "  No  commander,  or  master  of  a  ship 
trading  to  Africa,  shall  by  fraud,  force,  violence,  or  by  any 
indirect  practice  whatsoever,  take  on  board,  or  carry  away 
from  the  coast  of  Africa,  any  negro,  or  native  of  the  said 
country,  or  commit  any  violence  on  the  natives,  to  the  pre- 
judice of  the  said  trade,  and  that  every  person  so  offending 
shaU  for  every  such  offence  forfeit."  When  it  comes  to  the 
penalty,  sorry  am  I  to  say,  that  we  see  too  close  a  resemblance 
to  the  West  India  law,  which  inflicts  the  payment  of  £30  as 


140  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

the  punishment  for  murdering  a  negro.  The  price  of  blood 
in  Africa  is  ;f  100  ;  but  even  this  penalty  is  enough  to  prove 
that  the  Act  at  least  does  not  sanction,  much  less  does  it  engage 
to  perpetuate  enormities  ;  and  the  whole  trade  has  now  been 
demonstrated  to  be  a  mass,  a  system  of  enormities  ;  of  enor- 
mities which  incontrovertibly  bid  defiance  not  only  to  this 
clause,  but  to  every  regulation  which  our  ingenuity  can  devise, 
and  our  power  carry  into  effect.  Nothing  can  accomplish 
the  object  of  this  clause  but  an  extinction  of  the  trade 
itself. 

But,  Sir,  let  us  see  what  was  the  motive  for  carrying  on  the 
trade  at  all  ?  The  preamble  of  the  Act  states  it,  "  Whereas 
the  trade  to  and  from  Africa  is  very  advantageous  to  Great 
Britain,  and  necessary  for  the  supplying  the  plantations  and 
colonies  thereunto  belonging  with  a  sufficient  number  of  negroes 
at  reasonable  rates,  and  for  that  purpose  the  said  trade  should 
be  carried  on,"  etc.  Here  then  we  see  what  the  Parliament 
had  in  view  when  it  passed  this  Act  ;  and  I  have  clearly  shown 
that  not  one  of  the  occasions  on  which  is  grounded  its  proceed- 
ings now  exists.  I  may  then  plead,  I  think,  the  very  Act 
itself  as  an  argument  for  the  abolition.  If  it  is  shown  that, 
instead  of  being  "  very  advantageous  "  to  Great  Britain,  this 
trade  is  the  most  destructive  that  can  well  be  imagined  to  her 
interests  ;  that  it  is  the  ruin  of  our  seamen  ;  that  it  stops  the 
extension  of  our  manufactures  ;  if  it  is  proved  in  the  second 
place  that  it  is  not  now  necessary  for  the  "  supplying  our 
plantations  with  negroes  ;  "  if  it  is  further  established  that 
this  traffic  was  from  the  very  beginning  contrary  to  the  first 
principles  of  justice  and  consequently  that  a  pledge  for  its 
continuance,  had  one  been  attempted  to  have  been  given, 
must  have  been  completely  and  absolutely  void  ; — where  then 
in  this  Act  of  Parliament  is  the  contract  to  be  found,  by  which 
Britain  is  bound,  as  she  is  said  to  be,  never  to  listen  to  her  own 
true  interests,  and  the  cries  of  the  natives  of  Africa  ?  Is  it 
not  clear  that  all  argument,  founded  on  the  supposed  pledged 
faith  of  Parliament,  makes  against  those  who  employ  it  ?  I 
refer  you  to  the  principles  which  obtain  in  other  cases.  Every 
trade-act  shows  undoubtedly  that  the  legislature  is  used  to 
pay  a  tender  regard  to  all  classes  of  the  community.  But 
if  for  the  sake  of  moral  duty,  of  national  honour,  or  even  of 
great  political  advantage,  it  is  thought  right,  by  authority  of 


PITT  141 

Parliament,  to  alter  any  long-established  system,  Parliament 
is  competent  to  do  it.  The  legislature  will  undoubtedly  be 
careful  to  subject  individuals  to  as  little  inconvenience  as 
possible  ;  and  if  any  peculiar  hardship  should  arise  that  can 
be  distinctly  stated  and  fairly  pleaded,  there  will  ever,  I  am 
sure,  be  a  liberal  feeling  towards  them  in  the  legislature  of  this 
country,  which  is  the  guardian  of  aU  who  hve  under  its  pro- 
tection. On  the  present  occasion,  the  most  powerful  con- 
siderations call  upon  us  to  abolish  the  slave-trade  ;  and  if 
we  refuse  to  attend  to  them  on  the  alleged  ground  of  pledged 
faith  and  contract,  we  shall  depart  as  widely  from  the  practice 
of  Parliament,  as  from  the  path  of  moral  duty.  If,  indeed, 
there  is  any  case  of  hardship,  which  comes  within  the  proper 
cognisance  of  Parliament,  and  calls  for  the  exercise  of  its  hber- 
ality, — well  !  But  such  a  case  must  be  reserved  for  calm 
consideration,  as  a  matter  distinct  from  the  present  question. 
I  beg  pardon  for  dwelling  so  long  on  the  question  of  expedi- 
ency, and  on  the  manner  in  which  it  affects  the  West  Indies. 
I  have  been  carried  away  by  my  own  feelings  on  some  of  these 
points  into  a  greater  length  than  I  intended,  especially  con- 
sidering how  fully  the  subject  has  been  already  argued.  The 
result  of  all  I  have  said,  is,  that  there  exists  no  impediment, 
no  obstacle,  no  shadow  of  reasonable  objection  on  the  ground 
of  pledged  faith,  or  even  on  that  of  national  expediency,  to  the 
abolition  of  this  trade.  On  the  contrary,  all  the  arguments 
drawn  from  those  sources  plead  for  it,  and  they  plead  much 
more  loudly,  and  much  more  strongly  in  every  part  of  the 
question,  for  an  immediate,  than  for  a  gradual  abolition. 
But,  now  Sir,  I  come  to  Africa.  That  is  the  ground  on  which 
I  rest,  and  here  it  is  that  I  say  my  right  honourable  friends 
do  not  carry  their  principles  to  their  full  extent.  Why  ought 
the  slave-trade  to  be  abolished  ?  Because  it  is  incurable 
injustice.  How  much  stronger  then  is  the  argument  for 
immediate  than  gradual  abolition  !  By  allowing  it  to  continue 
even  for  one  hour,  do  not  my  right  honourable  friends  weaken 
— do  not  they  desert,  their  own  argument  of  its  injustice  ? 
If  on  the  ground  of  injustice  it  ought  to  be  abolished  at  last, 
why  ought  it  not  now  ?  Why  is  injustice  to  be  suffered  to 
remain  for  a  single  hour  ?  From  what  I  hear  without  doors, 
it  is  evident  that  there  is  a  general  conviction  entertained  of 
its  being  far  from  just ;   and  from  that  very  conviction  of  its 


142  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

injustice,  some  men  have  been  led,  I  fear,  to  the  supposition 
that  the  slave-trade  never  could  have  been  permitted  to  begin 
but  from  some  strong  and  irresistible  necessity — a   necessity 
however  which,  if  it  was  fancied  to  exist  at  first,  I  have  shown 
cannot  be  thought  by  any  man  whatever  to  exist  now.     This 
plea  of  necessity,  thus  presumed,  and  presumed,  as  I  suspect, 
from  the  circumstance  of  injustice  itself,  has  caused  a  sort  of 
acquiescence  in  the  continuance  of  this  evil.     Men  have  been 
led  to  place  it  among  the  rank  of  those  necessary  evils  which 
are  supposed  to  be  the  lot  of  human  creatures,  and  to  be  per- 
mitted to  fall  upon  some  countries  or  individuals,  rather  than 
upon  others,  by  that  Being,  whose  ways  are  inscrutable  to  us, 
and  whose  dispensations,  it  is  conceived,  we  ought  not  to  look 
into.     The  origin  of  evil  is  indeed  a  subject  beyond  the  reach  of 
human   understandings  :     and   the   permission   of  it   by   the 
Superior  Being  is  a  subject  into  which  it  belongs  not  to  us 
to  enquire.      But  where  the  evil  in  question  is  a  moral  evil 
which  a  man  can  scrutinize,  and  where  that  moral  evil  has  its 
origin  with  ourselves,  let  us  not  imagine  that  we  can  clear  our 
consciences  by  this  general,  not  to  say  irreligious  and  impious 
way  of  laying  aside  the  question.     If  we  reflect  at  all  on  this 
subject,  we  must  see  that  every  necessary  evil  supposes  that 
some  other  and  greater  evil  would  be  incurred  were  it  removed. 
I  therefore  desire  to  ask  what  can  be  that  greater  evil  which 
can  be  stated  to  overbalance  the  one  in  question  ? — I  know 
of  no  evil  that  ever  has  existed,  nor  can  imagine  any  evil  to 
exist,  worse  than  the  tearing  of  seventy  or  eighty  thousand 
persons  annually  from  their  native  land  by  a  combination  of 
the  most  civilized  nations,  inhabiting  the  most  enhghtened 
quarter  of  the  globe,  but  more  especially  under  the  sanction 
of  the  laws  of  that  nation  which  calls  herself  the  most  free  and 
the  most  happy  of  them  all.     Even  if  these  miserable  beings 
were  proved  guilty  of  every  crime  before  you  take  them  off 
(of  which,  however,  not  a  single  proof  is  adduced),  ought  we 
to  take  upon  ourselves  the  office  of  executioners  ?     And  even 
if  we  condescend  so  far,  still  can  we  be  justified  in  taking  them, 
unless  we  have  clear  proof  that  they  are  criminals  ?     But  if 
we  go  much  further — if  we  ourselves  tempt  them  to  sell  their 
fellow-creatures  to  us — we  may  rest  assured  that  they  will 
take  care  to  provide  by  every  method,  by  kidnapping,  by 
village-breaking,  by  unjust  wars,  by  iniquitous  condemnations, 


PITT  143 

by  rendering  Africa  a  scene  of  bloodshed  and  misery,  a  supply 
of  victims  increasing  in  proportion  to  our  demand.  Can  we 
then  hesitate  in  deciding  whether  the  wars  in  Africa  are  their 
wars  or  ours  ?  It  was  our  arms  in  the  river  Cameroon  put 
into  the  hands  of  the  trader,  that  furnished  him  with  the 
means  of  pushing  his  trade  ;  and  I  have  no  more  doubt  that 
they  are  British  arms  put  into  the  hands  of  Africans,  which 
promote  universal  war  and  desolation,  than  I  can  doubt  their 
having  done  so  in  that  individual  instance. 

I  have  shown  how  great  is  the  enormity  of  this  evil,  even  on 
the  supposition  that  we  take  only  convicts  and  prisoners  of 
war.  But  take  the  subject  in  the  other  way  ;  take  it  on  the 
grounds  stated  by  the  right  honourable  gentleman  over  the 
way  ;  and  how  does  it  stand  ?  Think  of  eighty  thousand 
persons  carried  away  out  of  their  country  by  we  know  not 
what  means  !  for  crimes  imputed  !  for  light  or  inconsiderable 
faults  ;  for  debt  perhaps  !  for  the  crime  of  witchcraft  !  or  a 
thousand  other  weak  and  scandalous  pretexts  !  besides  all  the 
fraud  and  kidnapping,  the  villainies  and  perfidy,  by  which  the 
slave-trade  is  supplied.  Reflect  on  these  eighty  thousand 
persons  thus  annually  taken  off !  There  is  something  in  the 
horror  of  it  that  surpasses  all  the  bounds  of  imagination. 
Admitting  that  there  exists  in  Africa  something  like  to  courts 
of  justice  ;  yet  what  an  office  of  humiliation  and  meanness  is 
it  in  us,  to  take  upon  ourselves  to  carry  into  execution  the 
partial,  the  cruel,  iniquitous  sentences  of  such  courts,  as  if  we 
also  were  strangers  to  all  religion,  and  to  the  first  principles 
of  justice  !  But  that  country,  it  is  said,  has  been  in  some  degree 
civilized,  and  civilized  by  us.  It  is  said  they  have  gained  some 
knowledge  of  the  principles  of  justice.  What,  Sir,  have  they 
gained  principles  of  justice  from  us  ?  Their  civilization  brought 
about  by  us  !  !  Yes,  we  give  enough  of  our  intercourse  to  con- 
vey to  them  the  means,  and  to  initiate  them  in  the  study 
of  mutual  destruction.  We  give  them  just  enough  of  the  forms 
of  justice  to  enable  them  to  add  the  pretext  of  legal  trials  to 
their  other  modes  of  perpetrating  the  most  atrocious  iniquity. 
We  give  them  just  enough  of  European  improvements  to  enable 
them  the  more  effectually  to  turn  Africa  into  a  savage  wilderness. 
Some  evidences  say  that  the  Africans  are  addicted  to  the 
practice  of  gambling  ;  that  they  even  sell  their  wives  and 
children,    and    ultimately    themselves.     Are    these    then  the 


144  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

legitimate  sources  of  slavery  ?  Shall  we  pretend  that  we 
can  thus  acquire  an  honest  right  to  exact  the  labour 
of  these  people  ?  Can  we  pretend  that  we  have  a  right 
to  carry  away  to  distant  regions  men  of  whom  we  know 
nothing  by  authentic  enquiry,  and  of  whom  there  is  every 
reasonable  presumption  to  think  that  those  who  sell  them 
to  us  have  no  right  to  do  so  ?  But  the  evil  does  not  stop  here. 
I  feel  that  there  is  no  time  for  me  to  make  all  the  remarks 
which  the  subject  deserves,  and  I  refrain  from  attempting 
to  enumerate  half  the  dreadful  consequences  of  this  system. 
Do  you  think  nothing  of  the  ruin  and  the  miseries  in  which 
so  many  other  individuals,  still  remaining  in  Africa,  are  in- 
volved in  consequence  of  carrying  off  so  many  myriads  of 
people  ?  Do  you  think  nothing  of  their  families  which  are 
left  behind  ?  of  the  connections  which  are  broken  ?  of  the 
friendships,  attachments,  and  relationships  that  are  burst 
asunder  ?  Do  you  think  nothing  of  the  miseries  in  conse- 
quence, that  all  felt  from  generation  to  generation  ?  Of  the 
privation  of  that  happiness  which  might  be  communicated 
to  them  by  the  introduction  of  civilization,  and  of  mental  and 
moral  improvement  ?  A  happiness  which  you  withhold  from 
them  so  long  as  you  permit  the  slave-trade  to  continue.  What 
do  you  yet  know  of  the  internal  state  of  Africa  ?  You  have 
carried  on  a  trade  to  that  quarter  of  the  globe  from  this  civi- 
lized and  enlightened  country  ;  but  such  a  trade  that,  instead 
of  diffusing  either  knowledge  or  wealth,  it  has  been  the  check 
to  every  laudable  pursuit.  Instead  of  any  fair  interchange 
of  commodities  ;  instead  of  conveying  to  them  from  this 
highly  favoured  land,  any  means  of  improvement,  you  carry 
with  you  that  noxious  plant  by  which  everything  is  withered 
and  blasted  ;  under  whose  shade  nothing  that  is  useful  or 
profitable  to  Africa  will  ever  flourish  or  take  root.  Long  as 
that  continent  has  been  known  to  navigators,  the  extreme  line 
and  boundaries  of  its  coasts  is  all  with  which  Europe  is  yet 
become  acquainted  ;  while  other  countries  in  the  same  parallel 
of  latitude,  through  a  happier  system  of  intercourse,  have 
reaped  the  blessings  of  a  mutually  beneficial  commerce.  But 
as  to  the  whole  interior  of  that  continent  you  are  by  your 
own  principles  of  commerce  as  yet  entirely  shut  out ;  Africa 
is  known  to  you  only  in  its  skirts.  Yet  even  there  you  are  able 
to  infuse  a  poison  that  spreads  its  contagious  effects  from  one 


PITT  145 

end  of  it  to  the  other,  which  penetrates  to  its  very  centre, 
corrupting  every  part  to  which  it  reaches.  You  there  subvert 
the  whole  order  of  nature  ;  you  aggravate  every  natural  bar- 
barity, and  furnish  to  every  man  living  on  that  continent 
motives  for  committing,  under  the  name  and  pretext  of  com- 
merce, acts  of  perpetual  violence  and  perfidy  against  his 
neighbour. 

Thus,  Sir,  has  the  perversion  of  British  commerce  carried 
misery,  instead  of  happiness  to  one  whole  quarter  of  the  globe. 
False  to  the  very  principles  of  trade,  misguided  in  our  policy, 
and  unmindful  of  our  duty,  what  astonishing — I  had  almost 
said,  what  irreparable  mischief,  have  we  brought  upon  that 
continent  !  I  would  apply  this  thought  to  the  present  ques- 
tion. How  shall  we  ever  repair  this  mischief  ?  How  shall  we 
hope  to  obtain,  if  it  be  possible,  forgiveness  from  Heaven  for 
those  enormous  evils  that  we  have  committed,  if  we  refuse 
to  make  use  of  those  means  which  the  mercy  of  Providence 
has  still  reserved  to  us  for  wiping  away  the  guilt  and  shame 
with  which  we  are  now  covered  ?  If  we  refuse  even  this  degree 
of  compensation,  if,  knowing  the  miseries  we  have  caused,  we 
refuse  even  now  to  put  a  stop  to  them,  how  greatly  aggravated 
win  be  the  guilt  of  Great  Britain  !  and  what  a  blot  will  the 
history  of  these  transactions  for  ever  be  in  the  history  of  this 
country  !  Shall  we  then  delay  to  repair  these  injuries,  and 
to  begin  rendering  this  justice  to  Africa  ?  Shall  we  not 
count  the  days  and  hours  that  are  suffered  to  intervene  and 
to  delay  the  accomplishment  of  such  work  ?  Reflect  what  an 
immense  object  is  before  you — what  an  object  for  a  nation  to 
have  in  view,  and  to  have  a  prospect,  under  the  favour  of 
Providence,  of  being  now  permitted  to  obtain  !  I  think  the 
House  will  agree  with  me  in  cherishing  the  ardent  wish  to  enter 
without  delay  upon  the  measures  necessary  for  these  great 
ends  ;  and  I  am  sure  that  the  immediate  abolition  of  the 
slave-trade  is  the  first,  the  principal,  the  most  indispensable 
act  of  poUcy,  of  duty,  and  of  justice,  that  the  legislature  of 
this  country  has  to  take,  if  it  is  indeed  their  wish  to  secure 
those  important  objects  to  which  I  have  alluded,  and  which 
we  are  bound  to  pursue  by  the  most  solemn  obhgations. 

There  is,  however,  one  argument  set  up  as  an  universal 
answer  to  everything  that  can  be  urged  on  one  side  ;  whether 
we  address  ourselves  to  gentlemen's  understandings  or  to  their 

lo — (2170) 


146  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

hearts  and  consciences.  It  is  necessary  that  I  should  remove 
this  formidable  objection  ;  for  though  not  often  stated  in 
distinct  terms,  I  fear  it  is  one  which  has  a  very  wide  influence. 
The  slave-trade  system,  it  is  supposed,  has  taken  so  deep  root 
in  Africa,  that  it  is  absurd  to  think  of  its  being  eradicated  ; 
and  the  abolition  of  that  share  of  trade  carried  on  by  Great 
Britain  (and  especially  if  her  example  is  not  followed  by  other 
powers)  is  likely  to  be  of  very  little  service.  Give  me  leave  to 
say,  in  answer  to  so  dangerous  an  argument,  that  we  ought 
to  be  extremely  sure  indeed  of  the  assumption  on  which  it 
rests  before  we  venture  to  rely  on  its  validity  ;  before  we 
decide  that  an  evil  which  we  ourselves  contribute  to  inflict 
is  incurable,  and  on  that  very  plea,  refuse  to  desist  in  bearing 
our  part  in  the  system  which  produces  it.  You  are  not  sure, 
it  is  said,  that  other  nations  will  give  up  the  trade,  if  you  should 
renounce  it.  I  answer,  if  this  trade  is  as  criminal  as  it  is  asserted 
to  be,  or  if  it  has  a  thousandth  part  of  the  criminality,  which 
I  and  others,  after  thorough  investigation  of  the  subject, 
charge  upon  it,  God  forbid  that  we  should  hesitate  in  deter- 
mining to  relinquish  so  iniquitous  a  traffic  ;  even  though  it 
should  be  retained  by  other  countries  !  God  forbid,  however, 
that  we  should  fail  to  do  our  utmost  toward  inducing  other 
countries  to  abandon  a  bloody  commerce  which  they  have 
probably  been  in  good  measure  led  by  our  example  to  pursue  ! 
God  forbid  that  we  should  be  capable  of  wishing  to  arrogate 
to  ourselves  the  glory  of  being  singular  in  renouncing  it  ! 

I  tremble  at  the  thought  of  gentlemen's  indulging  themselves 
in  this  argument  (an  argument  as  pernicious  as  it  is  futile) 
which  I  am  combating.  "  We  are  friends,"  say  they,  *'  to 
humanity.  We  are  second  to  none  of  you  in  our  zeal  for  the 
good  of  Africa, — but  the  French  will  not  abolish, — the  Dutch 
will  not  abolish, — we  wait,  therefore,  on  prudential  principles, 
till  they  join  us,  or  set  us  an  example." 

How,  Sir,  is  this  enormous  evil  ever  to  be  eradicated  if  every 
nation  is  thus  prudentially  to  wait  till  the  concurrence  of  all 
the  world  shall  have  been  obtained  ?  Let  me  remark,  too, 
that  there  is  no  nation  in  Europe  that  has,  on  the  one  hand, 
plunged  so  deeply  into  this  guilt  as  Britain  ;  or  that  is  so  likely, 
on  the  other,  to  be  looked  up  to  as  an  example,  if  she  should 
have  the  manliness  to  be  the  first  in  decidedly  renouncing  it. 
But,  Sir,  does  not  this  argument  apply  a  thousand  times  more 


PITT  147 

strongly  in  a  contrary  way  ?  How  much  more  justly  may 
other  nations  point  to  us  and  say,  "  Why  should  we  aboHsh 
the  slave-trade,  when  Great  Britain  has  not  abohshed  it  ? 
Britain,  free  as  she  is,  just  and  honourable  as  she  is,  and 
deeply  also  involved  as  she  is  in  this  commerce  above  all 
nations,  not  only  has  not  abolished,  but  has  refused  to  abolish. 
She  has  investigated  it  well ;  she  has  gained  the  completest 
insight  into  its  nature  and  eifects  ;  she  has  collected  volumes 
of  evidence  on  every  branch  of  the  subject.  Her  Senate  has 
deliberated — has  deliberated  again  and  again — and  what  is 
the  result  ?  she  has  gravely  and  solemnly  determined  to  sanc- 
tion the  slave-trade.  She  sanctions  it  at  least  for  a  while — 
her  legislature,  therefore,  it  is  plain,  sees  no  guilt  in  it,  and  has 
thus  furnished  us  with  the  strongest  evidence  that  she  can 
furnish, — of  the  justice  unquestionably — and  of  the  policy 
also,  in  a  certain  measure  and  in  certain  cases  at  least,  of 
permitting  the  traffic  to  continue." 

This,  Sir,  is  the  argument  with  which  we  furnish  the  other 
nations  of  Europe,  if  we  again  refuse  to  put  an  end  to  the  slave- 
trade.  Instead  therefore  of  imagining  that,  by  choosing  to 
presume  on  their  continuing  it,  we  shall  have  exempted 
ourselves  from  guilt,  and  have  transferred  the  whole  criminality 
to  them,  let  us  rather  reflect  that,  on  the  very  principle  urged 
against  us,  we  shall  henceforth  have  to  answer  for  their  crimes, 
as  well  as  our  own ;  we  have  strong  reasons  to  believe  that  it 
depends  upon  us  whether  other  countries  will  persist  in  this 
bloody  trade  or  not.  Already  we  have  suffered  one  year  to 
pass  away,  and  note  that  the  question  is  renewed,  a  proposition 
is  made  for  gradual,  with  the  view  of  preventing  immediate 
abolition.  I  know  the  difficulty  that  exists  in  attempting  to 
reform  long  established  abuses ;  and  I  know  the  danger 
arising  from  the  argument  in  favour  of  delay,  in  the  case  of 
evils  which  nevertheless  are  thought  too  enormous  to  be  borne, 
when  considered  as  perpetual.  But  by  proposing  some  other 
period  than  the  present,  by  prescribing  some  condition,  by 
waiting  for  some  contingency,  or  by  refusing  to  proceed  till 
a  thousand  favourable  circumstances  unite  together  ;  perhaps 
until  we  obtain  the  general  concurrence  of  Europe  (a  concur- 
rence which  I  believe  never  yet  took  place  at  the  commence- 
ment of  any  improvement  in  policy  or  in  morals)  year  after 
year  escapes,  and  the  most  enormous  evils  go  unredressed. 


148  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

We  see  this  abundantly  exemplified,  not  only  in  public,  but  in 
private  life.  Similar  observations  have  been  often  applied  to 
the  case  of  personal  reformation.  If  you  go  into  the  street, 
it  is  a  chance  but  the  first  person  who  crosses  you  is  one, 
*'  Vivendi  recte  qui  prorogat  horam."  We  may  wait ;  we  may 
delay  to  cross  the  stream  before  us,  till  it  has  run  down  ;  but 
we  shall  wait  for  ever,  for  the  river  will  still  flow  on,  without 
being  exhausted.  We  shall  be  no  nearer  the  object  which 
we  profess  to  have  in  view,  so  long  as  the  step,  which  alone 
can  bring  us  to  it,  is  not  taken,  Until  the  actual,  the  only 
remedy  is  applied,  we  ought  neither  to  flatter  ourselves  that 
we  have  as  yet  thoroughly  laid  to  heart  the  evil  we  affect  to 
deplore,  nor  that  there  is  as  yet  any  reasonable  assurance  of 
its  being  brought  to  an  actual  termination. 

It  has  also  been  occasionally  urged  that  there  is  something 
in  the  disposition  and  nature  of  the  Africans  themselves 
which  renders  all  prospect  of  civilization  on  that  continent 
extremely  unpromising.  "  It  has  been  known,"  says  Mr. 
Preiser,  in  his  evidence,  **  that  a  boy  has  been  put  to  death, 
who  was  refused  to  be  purchased  as  a  slave."  This  single  story 
was  deemed  by  that  gentleman  a  sufficient  proof  of  the  bar- 
barity of  the  Africans,  and  of  the  inutility  of  abolishing  the 
slave-trade.  My  honourable  friend,  however,  has  told  you, 
that  this  boy  had  previously  run  away  from  his  master  three 
several  times  ;  that  the  master  had  to  pay  his  value  according 
to  the  custom  of  his  country,  every  time  he  was  brought  back  ; 
and  that  partly  from  anger  at  the  boy  for  running  away  so 
frequently,  and  partly  to  prevent  a  still  further  repetition  of 
the  same  expense,  he  determined  to  put  him  to  death.  Such 
was  the  explanation  of  the  story  given  in  the  cross-examination. 
This,  Sir,  is  the  signal  instance  that  has  been  dwelt  upon  of 
African  barbarity.  This  African,  we  admit,  was  unenlightened, 
and  altogether  barbarous  ;  but  let  us  now  ask  what  would  a 
civilized  and  enlightened  West  Indian,  or  a  body  of  West 
Indians  have  done  in  any  case  of  a  parallel  nature  ?  I  will 
quote  you.  Sir,  a  law  passed  in  the  West  Indies  in  the  year 
1722,  which  in  turning  over  the  book  I  happened  just  now  to 
cast  my  eye  upon  ;  by  which  law  this  very  same  crime  of 
running  away  is,  by  the  legislature  of  the  land, — by  the  grave 
and  deliberate  sentence  of  that  enlightened  legislature,  pun- 
ished with  death  ;   and  this,  not  in  the  case  only  of  the  third 


Pitt  149 

offence,  but  even  in  the  very  first  instance.  It  is  enacted 
'*  that  if  any  negro  or  any  other  slave  shall  withdraw  himself 
from  his  master  for  the  term  of  six  months,  or  any  slave  that 
was  absent  shall  not  return  within  that  time,  it  shaU  be 
adjudged  felony,  and  every  such  person  shall  suffer  death." 
There  is  also  another  West  Indian  law,  by  which  every  negro's 
hand  is  armed  against  his  fellow-negroes,  by  his  being  authorized 
to  kill  a  run-away  slave,  and  even  having  a  reward  held  out 
to  him  for  so  doing.  Let  the  House  now  contrast  the  two 
cases.  Let  them  ask  themselves  which  of  the  two  exhibits 
the  greater  barbarity  ?  Let  them  reflect,  with  a  little  candour 
and  liberality,  whether  on  the  ground  of  any  of  those  facts 
and  loose  insinuations  as  to  the  sacrifices  to  be  met  with  in  the 
evidence  they  can  possibly  reconcile  to  themselves  the  excluding 
of  Africa  from  all  means  of  civihzation  ?  Whether  they  can 
possibly  vote  for  the  continuance  of  the  slave-trade  upon  the 
principle  that  the  Africans  have  shown  themselves  to  be  a 
race  of  incorrigible  barbarians  ? 

I  hope,  therefore,  we  shall  hear  no  more  of  the  moral  impos- 
sibility of  civiUzing  the  Africans,  nor  have  our  understandings 
and  consciences  again  insulted,  by  being  called  upon  to  sanction 
the  slave-trade,  until  other  nations  shall  have  set  the  example 
of  abolishing  it.  W^hile  we  have  been  deliberating  upon  the 
subject,  one  nation,  not  ordinarily  taking  the  lead  in  politics, 
nor  by  any  means  remarkable  for  the  boldness  of  its  councils, 
has  determined  on  a  gradual  abolition  ;  a  determination, 
indeed,  which,  since  it  permits  for  a  time  the  existence  of  the 
slave-trade,  would  be  an  unfortunate  pattern  for  our  imitation. 
France,  it  is  said,  wiU  take  up  the  trade,  if  we  rehnquish  it, 
What  ?  Is  it  supposed  that  in  the  present  situation  of  St. 
Domingo,  an  island  which  used  to  take  three-fourths  of  all  the 
slaves  required  by  the  colonies  of  France,  she,  of  all  countries, 
will  think  of  taking  it  up  ?  What  countries  remain  ?  The 
Portuguese,  the  Dutch,  and  the  Spaniards.  Of  those  countries 
let  me  declare  it  is  my  opinion  that  if  they  see  us  renounce 
the  trade,  after  full  deliberation,  they  vvdll  not  be  disposed, 
even  on  principles  of  policy,  to  rush  further  into  it.  But  I 
say  more  :  How  are  they  to  furnish  the  capital  necessary 
for  carrying  it  on  ?  If  there  is  any  aggravation  of  our  guilt, 
in  this  wretched  business,  greater  than  another,  it  is  that  we 
have  stooped  to  be  the  carriers  of  these  miserable  beings  from 


150  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

Africa  to  the  West  Indies  for  all  the  other  powers  of  Europe. 
And  now,  Sir,  if  we  retire  from  the  trade  altogether,  I  ask, 
where  is  that  fund  which  is  to  be  raised  at  once  by  other 
nations, — equal  to  the  purchase  of  30  or  40,000  slaves  ?  A 
fund,  which  if  we  rate  them  at  £40  or  £50  each,  cannot  make 
a  capital  of  less  than  a  million  and  a  half,  or  two  millions  of 
money.  From  what  branch  of  their  commerce  is  it  that  these 
European  nations  will  draw  together  a  fund  to  feed  this  mon- 
ster ? — to  keep  alive  this  detestable  commerce  ?  And  even  if 
they  should  make  the  attempt,  will  not  that  immense  chasm, 
which  must  instantly  be  created  in  the  other  parts  of  their 
trade,  from  which  this  vast  capital  must  be  withdrawn  in  order 
to  supply  the  slave-trade,  be  filled  up  by  yourselves  ? — 
Will  not  these  branches  of  commerce  which  they  must  leave, 
and  from  which  they  must  withdraw  their  industry  and  their 
capitals,  in  order  to  supply  them  to  the  slave-trade,  be  then 
taken  up  by  British  merchants  ? — Will  you  not  even  in  this 
case  find  your  capital  flow  into  these  deserted  channels  ? — 
Will  not  your  capital  be  turned  from  the  slave-trade  to  that 
natural  and  innocent  commerce  from  which  they  must  with- 
draw their  capitals  in  proportion  as  they  take  up  the  traffic 
in  the  flesh  and  blood  of  their  fellow-creatures  ? 

The  committee  sees,  I  trust,  how  little  ground  of  objection 
to  our  proposition  there  is  in  this  part  of  our  adversaries' 
argument. 

Having  now  detained  the  House  so  long,  all  that  I  will 
further  add  shall  be  on  that  important  subject,  the  civilization 
of  Africa,  which  I  have  already  shown  that  I  consider  as  the 
leading  feature  in  this  question.  Grieved  am  I  to  think  that 
there  should  be  a  single  person  in  this  country,  much  more 
that  there  should  be  a  single  member  in  the  British  Parliament, 
who  can  look  on  the  present  dark,  uncultivated,  and  uncivilized 
state  of  that  continent  as  a  ground  for  continuing  the  slave- 
trade, — as  a  ground  for  not  only  refusing  to  attempt  the 
improvement  of  Africa,  but  even  for  hindering  and  inter- 
cepting every  ray  of  light  which  might  otherwise  break  in  upon 
her, — as  a  ground  for  refusing  to  her  the  common  chance  and 
the  common  means,  with  which  other  nations  have  been 
blessed,  of  emerging  from  their  native  barbarism. 

Here,  as  in  every  other  branch  of  this  extensive  question, 
the  argument  of  our  adversaries  pleads  against  them  ;    for. 


PITt  151 

surely,  Sir,  the  deplorable  state  of  Africa,  especially  when  we 
reflect  that  her  chief  calamities  are  to  be  ascribed  to  us,  calls 
for  our  generous  aid,  rather  than  justifies  any  despair  on  our 
part  of  her  recovery,  and  still  less  any  further  repetition  of  our 
injuries. 

I  will  not  much  longer  fatigue  the  attention  of  the  House  ; 
but  this  point  has  impressed  itself  so  deeply  on  my  mind,  that 
I  must  trouble  the  committee  with  a  few  additional  observa- 
tions. Are  we  justified,  I  ask,  on  any  one  ground  of  theory, 
or  by  any  one  instance  to  be  found  in  the  history  of  the  world, 
from  its  very  beginning  to  this  day,  in  forming  the  supposition 
which  I  am  now  combating  ?  Are  we  justified  in  supposing 
that  the  particular  practice  which  we  encourage  in  Africa,  of 
men's  selling  each  other  for  slaves,  is  any  symptom  of  a  bar- 
barism that  is  incurable  ?  x\re  we  justified  in  supposing  that 
even  the  practice  of  offering  up  human  sacrifices  proves  a  total 
incapacity  for  civilization  ?  I  believe  it  will  be  found,  and 
perhaps  much  more  generally  than  is  supposed,  that  both  the 
trade  in  slaves,  and  the  still  more  savage  custom  of  offering 
human  sacrifices,  obtained  in  former  periods,  throughout 
many  of  those  nations  which  now,  by  the  blessings  of  Provi- 
dence, and  by  a  long  progression  of  improvements,  are  advanced 
the  farthest  in  civilization.  I  believe.  Sir,  that  if  we  reflect  an 
instant,  we  shall  find  that  this  observation  comes  directly  home 
to  our  own  selves  ;  and  that,  on  the  same  ground  on  which 
we  are  now  disposed  to  proscribe  Africa  for  ever  from  all  possi- 
bihty  of  improvement,  we  ourselves  might,  in  hke  manner, 
have  been  proscribed  and  for  ever  shut  out  from  all  the  blessings 
which  we  now  enjoy. 

There  was  a  time.  Sir,  which  it  may  be  fit  sometimes 
to  revive  in  the  remembrance  of  our  countrymen,  when  even 
human  sacrifices  are  said  to  have  been  offered  in  this  island. 
But  I  would  peculiarly  observe  on  this  day,  for  it  is  a 
case  precisely  in  point,  that  the  very  practice  of  the 
slave-trade  once  prevailed  among  us.  Slaves,  as  we  may 
read  in  Henry  s  History  of  Great  Britain,  were  formerly 
an  established  article  of  our  exports.  Great  numbers,'* 
he  says,  "  were  exported  like  cattle,  from  the  British 
coast,  and  were  to  be  seen  exposed  for  sale  in  the  Roman 
market."  It  does  not  distinctly  appear  by  what  means  they 
were   procured ;     but    there    was    unquestionably    no    small 


152  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

resemblance,  in  this  particular  point,  between  the  case  of  our 
ancestors  and  that  of  the  present  wretched  natives  of  Africa 
— for  the  historian  tells  us  that  "  adultery,  witchcraft,  and  debt 
were  probably  some  of  the  chief  sources  of  supplying  the 
Roman  market  with  British  slaves — that  prisoners  taken  in 
war  were  added  to  the  number — and  that  there  might  be 
among  them  some  unfortunate  gamesters  who,  after  having 
lost  all  their  goods,  at  length  stake  themselves,  their  wives  and 
their  children."  Every  one  of  these  sources  of  slavery  has 
been  stated,  and  almost  precisely  in  the  same  terms,  to  be  at 
this  hour  a  source  of  slavery  in  Africa.  And  these  circum- 
stances. Sir,  with  a  solitary  instance  or  two  of  human  sacrifices, 
furnish  the  alleged  proofs  that  Africa  labours  under  a  natural 
incapacity  for  civilization  :  that  it  is  enthusiasm  and  fanaticism 
to  think  that  she  can  ever  enjoy  the  knowledge  and  the  morals 
of  Europe  ;  that  Providence  never  intended  her  to  rise  above 
a  state  of  barbarism  ;  that  Providence  has  irrevocably  doomed 
her  to  be  only  a  nursery  for  slaves  for  us  free  and  civilized 
Europeans.  Allow  of  this  principle,  as  applied  to  Africa,  and 
I  should  be  glad  to  know  why  it  might  not  also  have  been 
applied  to  ancient  and  uncivilized  Britain.  Why  might 
not  some  Roman  Senator,  reasoning  on  the  principles  of  some 
honourable  gentlemen  and  pointing  to  British  barbarisms,  have 
predicted  with  equal  boldness,  "  There  is  a  people  that  will 
never  rise  to  civilization — there  is  a  people  destined  never  to 
be  free — a  people  without  the  understanding  necessary  for  the 
attainment  of  useful  arts  ;  depressed  by  the  hand  of  nature 
below  the  level  of  the  human  species  ;  and  created  to  form  a 
supply  of  slaves  for  the  rest  of  the  world."  Might  not  this 
have  been  said,  according  to  the  principles  which  we  now  hear 
stated,  in  all  respects  as  fairly  and  as  truly  of  Britain  herself,  at 
that  period  of  her  history,  as  it  now  can  be  said  by  us  of  the 
inhabitants  of  Africa  ? 

We,  Sir,  have  long  since  emerged  from  barbarism — we  have 
almost  forgotten  that  we  were  once  barbarians — we  are  now 
raised  to  a  situation  which  exhibits  a  striking  contrast  to  every 
circumstance  by  which  a  Roman  might  have  characterized  us, 
and  by  which  we  now  characterize  Africa.  There  is,  indeed, 
one  thing  wanting  to  complete  the  contract,  and  to  clear  us 
altogether  from  the  imputation  of  acting  even  to  this  hour 
as  barbarians  :  for  we  continue  to  this  hour  a  barbarous  traffic 


PITT  153 

in  slaves  ;  we  continue  it  even  yet  in  spite  of  our  great  and 
undeniable  pretensions  to  civilization.  We  were  once  as 
obscure  amongst  the  nations  of  the  earth,  as  savage  in  our 
manners,  as  debased  in  our  morals,  as  degraded  in  our  under- 
standings, as  these  unhappy  Africans  are  at  the  present.  But 
in  the  lapse  of  a  long  series  of  years,  by  a  progression  slow, 
and  for  a  time,  almost  imperceptible,  we  have  become  rich  in 
a  variety  of  acquirements,  favoured  above  measure  in  the  gifts 
of  Providence,  unrivalled  in  commerce,  pre-eminent  in  arts, 
foremost  in  the  pursuits  of  philosophy  and  science,  and  estab- 
lished in  all  the  blessings  of  civil  society  ;  we  are  in  the  posses- 
sion of  peace,  of  happiness,  and  of  Uberty  ;  we  are  under  the 
guidance  of  a  mild  and  beneficent  religion  ;  and  we  are  pro- 
tected by  impartial  laws,  and  the  purest  administration  of 
justice  ;  we  are  living  under  a  system  of  government  which  our 
own  happy  experience  leads  us  to  pronounce  the  best  and  wisest 
which  has  ever  yet  been  framed  ;  a  system  which  has  become 
the  admiration  of  the  world.  From  all  these  blessings  we 
must  for  ever  have  been  shut  out,  had  there  been  any  truth  in 
those  principles  which  some  gentlemen  have  not  hesitated  to 
lay  down  as  applicable  to  the  case  of  Africa.  Had  those  princi- 
ples been  true,  we  ourselves  had  languished  to  this  hour  in  that 
miserable  state  of  ignorance,  brutality,  and  degradation,  in 
which  history  proves  our  ancestors  to  have  been  immersed. 
Had  other  nations  adopted  these  principles  in  their  conduct 
towards  us,  had  other  nations  applied  to  Great  Britain  the 
reasons  which  some  of  the  senators  of  this  very  island  now 
apply  to  Africa,  ages  might  have  passed  without  our  emerging 
from  barbarism  ;  and  we,  who  are  enjoying  the  blessings  of 
British  civilization,  of  British  laws,  and  British  liberty,  might 
at  this  hour  have  been  little  superior,  either  in  morals,  in 
knowledge,  or  refinement,  to  the  rude  inhabitants  of  the  Coast 
of  Guinea. 

If  then  we  feel  that  this  perpetual  confinement  in  the  fetters 
of  brutal  ignorance  would  have  been  the  greatest  calamity 
which  could  have  befallen  us  ;  if  we  view  with  gratitude  and 
exultation  the  contrast  between  the  peculiar  blessings  we 
enjoy  and  the  wTetchedness  of  the  ancient  inhabitants  of 
Britain  ;  if  we  shudder  to  think  of  the  misery  which  would 
still  have  overwhelmed  us  had  Great  Britain  continued  to  the 
present  times  to  be  the  mart  for  slaves  to  the  more  civilized 


l54  FAMOUS   SPEECHfeS 

nations  of  the  world,  through  some  cruel  policy  of  theirs,  God 
forbid  that  we  should  any  longer  subject  Africa  to  the  same 
dreadful  scourge,  and  preclude  the  light  of  knowledge,  which 
has  reached  every  other  quarter  of  the  globe,  from  having 
access  to  her  coasts  ! 

I  trust  we  shall  no  longer  continue  this  commerce,  to  the 
destruction  of  every  improvement  on  that  wide  continent, 
and  shall  not  consider  ourselves  as  conferring  too  great  a  boon 
in  restoring  its  inhabitants  to  the  rank  of  human  beings.  I 
trust  we  shall  not  think  ourselves  too  liberal,  if,  by  abolishing 
the  slave-trade,  we  give  them  the  same  common  chance  of 
civilization  with  other  parts  of  the  world,  and  that  we  shall 
now  allow  to  Africa  the  opportunity — the  hope — the  prospect 
of  attaining  to  the  same  blessings  which  we  ourselves,  through 
the  favourable  dispensations  of  Divine  Providence,  have  been 
permitted,  at  a  much  more  early  period,  to  enjoy.  If  we  listen 
to  the  voice  of  reason  and  duty,  and  pursue  this  night  the  line 
of  conduct  which  they  prescribe,  some  of  us  may  live  to  see 
a  reverse  of  that  picture,  from  which  we  now  turn  our  eyes 
with  shame  and  regret.  We  may  live  to  behold  the  natives 
of  Africa  engaged  in  the  calm  occupations  of  industry,  in  the 
pursuits  of  a  just  and  legitimate  commerce.  We  may  behold 
the  beams  of  science  and  philosophy  breaking  in  upon  their 
land,  which,  at  some  happy  period  in  still  later  times,  may 
blaze  with  full  lustre  ;  and  joining  their  influence  to  that  of 
pure  religion,  may  illuminate  and  invigorate  the  most  distant 
extremities  of  that  immense  continent.  Then  may  we  hope 
that  even  Africa,  though  last  of  all  the  quarters  of  the  globe, 
shall  enjoy  at  length,  in  the  evening  of  her  days,  those  blessings 
which  have  descended  so  plentifully  upon  us  in  a  much  earlier 
period  of  the  world.  Then  also  will  Europe,  participating  in 
her  improvement  and  prosperity,  receive  an  ample  recompense 
for  the  tardy  kindness  (if  kindness  it  can  be  called)  of  no  longer 
hindering  that  continent  from  extricating  herself  out  of  the 
darkness  which,  in  other  more  fortunate  regions,  has  been  so 
much  more  speedily  dispelled. 

Nos  primus  equis  oriens  affiavit  anhelis  ; 


Illic  sera  rubens  accendit  lumina  Vesper." 

Then,  Sir,  may  be  applied  to  Africa,  those  words,  originally 
used  indeed  with  a  different  view  : 


PITT  l55 


His  demum  exactis 


Devenere  locos  Icetos.  et  amoejia  vireta 
Fortunatorum  nemorum,  sedesque  beatas  : 
Largior  hie  campos  cether,  et  lumine  vestit 
Purpurea." 

It  is  in  this  view,  Sir, — it  is  an  atonement  for  our  long  and 
cruel  injustice  towards  Africa,  that  the  measure  proposed  by 
my  honourable  friend  most  forcibly  recommends  itself  to  my 
mind.  The  great  and  happy  change  to  be  expected  in  the 
state  of  her  inhabitants  is,  of  all  the  various  and  important 
benefits  of  the  abolition,  in  my  estimation  incomparably  the 
most  extensive  and  important. 

I  shall  vote.  Sir,  against  the  adjournment ;  and  I  shall  also 
oppose  to  the  utmost  every  proposition  which  in  any  way 
may  tend  either  to  prevent,  or  even  to  postpone  for  an  hour, 
the  total  abolition  of  the  slave-trade  ;  a  measure  which,  on 
all  the  various  grounds  which  I  have  stated,  we  are  bound, 
by  the  most  pressing  and  indispensable  duty,  to  adopt. 

Roman  Catholic  Emancipation 
House  of  Commons,  May  ISth,  1805 
Differing,  Sir,  as  I  do,  from  the  honourable  gentleman  who 
proposed  this  motion,  and  differing  also  in  many  respects  from 
several  of  those  who  have  opposed  it,  I  feel  it  necessary  to  state 
shortly,  but  distinctly,  the  views,  the  motives,  and  the  grounds 
upon  which  that  difference  of  opinion  is  founded.  But  in 
doing  this,  I  cannot  refrain  from  expressing,  in  the  first  instance, 
the  very  great  satisfaction  I  feel  at  the  temper  and  the  modera- 
tion with  which  the  motion  was  introduced,  and  with  which 
for  so  many  reasons,  I  am  particularly  desirous  that  the  dis- 
cussion should  be  conducted.  Happy  am  I  also  that  the 
manner  in  which  the  subject  has  been  introduced  has  relieved 
me  from  the  necessity  of  entering  at  large  into  those  general 
principles  and  grounds  which,  when  the  question  was  discussed 
before,  I  felt  myself  compelled  to  do. 

I  observe  with  pleasure  that  the  application  made  by  the 
petitioners  has  not  been  advanced  as  a  claim  of  right,  but  of 
expediency.  I  observe  also,  with  equal  pleasure,  that  the 
honourable  gentleman  has  argued  it  upon  that  ground  ;  not 
that  I  mean  to  infer  that  the  honourable  gentleman  has  aban- 
doned the  opinion  he  held  upon  that  subject,  but  that  in  the 


156  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

application  of  the  principles  which  have  governed  his  conduct 
he  has  thought  proper  to  discuss  the  question  upon  the  ground 
of  expediency.  That  is  the  ground  upon  which  I  feel  the 
measure  ought  alone  to  be  discussed  ;  for  I  cannot  allow  that, 
at  any  time,  under  any  circumstances,  or  under  any  possible 
situation  of  affairs,  it  ought  to  be  discussed  or  entertained  as  a 
claim  or  question  of  right.  I,  Sir,  have  never  been  one  of  those 
who  have  held  that  the  term  emancipation  is,  in  the  smallest 
degree,  applicable  to  the  repeal  of  the  few  remaining  penal 
statutes  to  which  the  Cathohcs  are  still  liable.  But,  possibly, 
in  my  view  of  the  grounds  of  expediency,  I  may  think  it  to 
be  much  more  contradistinguished  from  the  question  of  right 
than  the  honourable  gentleman  does.  He  seems  to  consider 
that  there  is  only  a  shade  of  difference  between  the  expediency 
and  the  right ;  whereas  my  view  of  the  difference  is  broad, 
evident,  and  fundamental.  I  consider  right  as  independent 
of  circumstances,  and  paramount  to  them,  while  expediency 
is  connected  with  circumstances,  and,  in  a  great  measure, 
dependent  upon  them. 

With  regard  to  the  admission  of  the  Catholics  to  franchises, 
to  the  elective  franchise,  or  to  any  of  those  posts  and  offices 
which  have  been  alluded  to,  I  view  all  these  points  as  distinc- 
tions to  be  given,  not  for  the  sake  of  the  person  and  the  indi- 
vidual who  is  to  possess  them,  but  for  the  sake  of  the  public, 
for  whose  benefit  they  were  created,  and  for  whose  advantage 
they  are  to  be  exercised.  In  all  times,  therefore,  and  upon 
every  occasion,  whether  relating  to  the  Roman  Catholic  or  the 
Protestant  dissenter,  to  the  people  of  Ireland,  or  to  the  people 
of  England,  I  have  always,  from  a  due  regard  to  the  constitu- 
tion, been  of  opinion  that  we  are  bound  to  consider,  not  merely 
what  is  desired  by  a  part,  but  what  is  best  and  most  advan- 
tageous for  the  whole.  And  therefore  it  is,  that  I  think  it  not 
sufficient  to  show  that  what  is  demanded  is  not  likely  to  be 
prejudicial,  but  that  it  is  proper  to  take  a  comprehensive 
view  of  all  the  circumstances  connected  with  it,  whether  they 
relate  to  the  time  at  which  the  measure  is  proposed,  the  manner 
in  which  it  is  discussed,  or  the  effect  that  is  likely  to  follow 
from  the  discussion.  That,  Sir,  is  my  view  of  contemplating 
the  propriety  of  acceding  to  the  wishes  of  the  Catholics,  or  of 
refusing  them.  It  was  upon  that  principle  that  I  felt  satis- 
faction in  the  repeal  of  those  laws  against  the  Catholics  which 


Pitt  157 

have  been  abolished ;  and  from  the  abohtion  of  which  I 
certainly  am  not  one  who  infers  that  danger  to  the  country, 
with  which  some  gentlemen  seem  to  be  so  deeply  impressed. 
But,  deeply  as  I  felt  that  satisfaction,  I  also  felt  that  in  no 
possible  case  previous  to  the  union  could  the  privileges  now 
demanded  be  given,  consistently  with  a  due  regard  to  the 
Protestant  interest  in  Ireland,  to  the  internal  tranquillity  of 
that  Kingdom,  the  frame  and  structure  of  our  constitution, 
or  the  probability  of  the  permanent  connection  of  Ireland 
with  this  country.  It  is  true,  that  after  the  union,  I  saw  the 
subject  in  a  different  light ;  but  whilst  that  event  was  in  con- 
templation I  did  state,  as  the  honourable  gentleman  says, 
that  the  measure  would  make  a  material  difference  in  my 
opinion  ;  but  he  has  also  stated,  what  is  very  true,  that  I  did 
not  make  a  distinct  pledge.  On  the  contrary,  I  believe  the 
line  of  argument  I  took  was,  that  if  it  should  be  thought  right 
to  give  what  the  Catholics  required,  it  might  be  given  after 
the  union  with  more  safety  to  the  Empire  ;  or  if  it  were  thought 
proper  to  refuse  giving  it,  that  it  might  then  be  refused  without 
producing  those  disastrous  consequences  which  might  have 
been  apprehended  before  the  union.  I  come,  then,  to  the 
present  discussion,  perfectly  free  and  unfettered.  I  certainly 
was  of  opinion  that  under  an  united  Parliament  those  privi- 
leges might  be  granted  under  proper  guards  and  conditions, 
so  as  not  to  produce  any  danger  to  the  established  Church, 
or  the  Protestant  constitution.  And  I  remain  this  day  of  that 
opinion  and  I  still  think,  if,  from  other  circumstances,  there 
was  no  objection  to  complying  with  the  demands  of  the 
Catholics,  and  if  by  a  ^\dsh  they  could  be  carried  into  effect, 
I  own  I  see  none  of  those  dangers  which  have  been  urged  by 
some  gentlemen,  nor  do  I  think  that  the  introduction  of  a 
certain  proportion  of  Catholics  into  the  Imperial  Parliament 
would  be  likely  to  be  productive  of  any  influence  or  effect 
detrimental  or  injurious  to  the  welfare  of  the  estate,  or  the 
safety  or  security  of  the  constitution. 

But,  Sir,  in  delivering  this  frank  opinion,  I  do  not  mean 
wilfully  to  shut  my  eyes  to  this  conviction,  that  a  CathoUc, 
however  honourable  his  intentions  may  be,  must  feel  anxious 
to  advance  the  interests  of  his  religion  ;  it  is  in  the  very  nature 
of  man  ;  he  may  disclaim  and  renounce  this  wish  for  a  time, 
but  there  is  no  man,  who  is  at  all  acquainted  with  the  operations 


158  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

of  the  human  heart,  who  does  not  know  that  the  Catholic 
must  feel  that  anxiety  whenever  the  power  and  the  opportunity 
may  be  favourable  to  him.  But,  if  these  guards  and  condi- 
tions to  which  I  have  alluded  had  been  applied,  and  which, 
could  my  wishes  have  been  accomplished,  it  would  have  been 
my  endeavour  to  have  supplied,  I  firmly  believe  no  danger 
would  have  existed,  and  no  injury  could  have  been  appre- 
hended. I  thought  so  on  grounds  different  from  those  which 
have  been  stated  by  others,  not  because  as  Catholics  they  had 
been  engaged  in  any  of  the  scenes  preceding  the  rebellion.  I 
do  not  mean,  however,  to  say,  that  the  Catholics  were  not 
engaged  in  it  in  greater  numbers  for  the  reasons  that  have  been 
stated.  I  go  further  ;  though  Jacobin  principles  were  the 
foundation  of  the  rebellion,  yet  I  do  not  mean  to  deny  that  the 
influence  of  the  priests  themselves,  tainted  with  Jacobin 
principles,  might  not  have  aggravated  the  evil,  though  they 
were  not  the  cause  of  it.  My  idea  was  not  to  apply  tests  to  the 
religious  tenets  of  the  Cathohcs,  but  tests  applicable  to  what 
was  the  source  and  foundation  of  the  evil,  to  render  the  priests, 
instead  of  making  them  the  instruments  of  poisoning  the 
minds  of  the  people,  dependent  in  some  sort  upon  the  govern- 
ment, and  thus  links,  as  it  were,  between  the  government  and 
the  people.  That  would  have  been  a  wise  and  comprehensive 
system  ;  that  would  have  been  the  system  which  I  should  have 
felt  it  to  be  my  wish,  and  thought  it  to  have  been  my  duty, 
to  have  proposed.  I  never  thought  that  it  would  have  been 
wise  or  prudent  to  have  thrown  down  rudely  or  abruptly  the 
guards  and  fences  of  the  constitution  ;  but  I  did  think  that  if 
the  system  I  have  alluded  to  had  been  deemed  proper  to  be 
adopted,  it  ought  to  have  been  accompanied  with  those  checks 
and  guards,  and  with  every  regulation  that  could  have  given 
additional  respect  and  influence  to  the  estabhshed  Church, 
to  the  support  and  protection  of  the  Protestant  interests,  and 
to  the  encouragement  of  every  measure  that  could  tend  to 
propagate  and  spread  the  example  of  the  Protestant  religion. 
These  were  the  general  views  and  intentions  I  entertained. 
And  if.  Sir,  it  had  been  possible  to  have  found  out  that  general 
concurrence  which  I  so  anxiously  desired  ;  if  I  could  have 
carried  them  into  effect  in  the  manner  I  have  stated  ;  if  per- 
sons of  more  ability  and  experience  than  myself  would  have 
defeated  them,  I  am  still  inchned  to  think,  that,  instead  of 


PITT  159 

being  attended  with  those  dangerous  consequences  which  some 
gentlemen  apprehend,  they  would  have  afforded  increased 
security  to  the  Church,  and  have  been  favourable  to  the 
welfare  of  the  State,  to  the  stability  of  the  constitution  and  to 
the  general  strength  and  interest  of  the  empire. 

But  when  I  state  this,  I  must  also  remind  the  House  that  I 
considered  the  period  of  the  union  as  the  period  favourable  for 
the  adoption  of  such  a  measure,  not  because  any  pledge  had 
been  given,  but  because  there  was  a  greater  likehhood  that  the 
measure  might  be  adopted  after  the  union  than  before  it.  The 
period  was  favourable  also  on  another  account,  favourable 
from  the  recent  impressions  that  might  be  expected  to  be 
made  on  men's  minds,  of  the  probability  of  increased  security 
from  the  union  ;  from  being  amalgamated  and  incorporated 
with  the  imperial  legislature,  remote  from  the  dangerous 
influence  that  might  at  times  have  been  supposed  to  operate 
upon  it,  and  overawe  the  local  legislature  of  Ireland.  Sir, 
I  repeat,  that  if  under  the  recent  impression  of  these  circum- 
stances, I  could  have  brought  forward  the  measure  as  the  first 
fruits  of  the  union,  I  should  have  hoped  there  might  have  been 
a  disposition  to  have  received  it  without  rekindling  those 
religious  animosities,  or  reviving  those  contending  interests, 
between  Catholic  and  Protestant,  which,  whenever  they  do 
exist,  are  most  adverse  to  the  welfare,  the  prosperity,  and  the 
happiness  of  the  State. 

This  was  the  view  in  which  I  considered  this  most  important 
subject ;  these  were  the  objects  which  I  wished  to  attain  ;  but 
circumstances,  unfortunate  circumstances,  in  my  opinion 
rendered  it  at  that  period  impossible  to  bring  forward  the 
measure  in  the  way  in  which  I  then  hoped  it  might  be  practi- 
cable to  bring  it  forward — in  the  only  way  in  which  I  think  it 
ought  at  any  time  to  be  brought  forward — in  the  only  way 
in  which  it  could  be  brought  forward  with  advantage  to  the 
claims  of  those  whose  petition  is  now  under  consideration,  or 
with  any  hope  of  reconciling  all  differences,  of  burying  all 
animosities,  and  of  producing  that  perfect  union,  in  the  advan- 
tages of  which  gentlemen  on  all  sides  so  entirely  concur.  What 
the  circumstances  were  to  which  I  allude,  as  having  at  that  time 
prevented  me  from  calling  the  attention  of  Parhament  to  this 
subject,  in  the  manner  and  with  the  prospects  which^I  wished, 
it  is  not  now  necessary  for  me  to  state.     All  the  explanationj> 


160  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

which  I  thought  it  my  duty  to  give  I  gave  at  that  time — more 
I  do  not  feel  myself  now  called  upon  to  give,  and  nothing  shall 
induce  me  to  enter  into  further  details  upon  this  subject.  I 
shall,  therefore,  now  content  myself  with  stating  that  the 
circumstances  which  made  me  feel  that  it  was  then  improper 
to  bring  forward  this  question,  and  which  led  to  the  resignation 
of  the  then  administration,  have  made  so  deep,  so  lasting  an 
impression  upon  my  mind,  that,  so  long  as  those  circumstances 
continue  to  operate,  I  shall  feel  it  a  duty  imposed  upon  me 
not  only  not  to  bring  forward,  but  not  in  any  manner  to  be  a 
party  in  bringing  forward  or  in  agitating  this  question. 

Having  said  this  much.  Sir,  upon  the  opinions  I  then  enter- 
tained, and  upon  the  principles  which  then,  and  I  trust  always 
will,  govern  my  conduct,  I  think  it  right  to  add  that  the  whole 
of  the  plan  which  I  had  formed,  the  whole  essence  of  the  system 
which  I  meant  to  have  proposed,  was  a  measure  of  peace,  of 
union,  of  conciliation — a  measure  which  I  did  hope  would  have 
had  the  effect  of  softening  down  all  religious  differences,  of 
extinguishing  all  animosities,  and  in  uniting  all  men  of  both 
religions  in  one  common  zeal  for  the  preservation  of  the  con- 
stitution and  for  the  general  happiness  and  prosperity  of  the 
empire.  But,  desirous  as  I  then  was  of  proposing  this  measure, 
and  sanguine  as  I  was  in  my  hopes  of  its  success,  nothing  could 
be  further  from  my  intention  than  to  bring  it  forward  if  there 
did  not  appear  a  rational  prospect  of  it  being  carried  (not  with 
unanimity,  for  upon  such  an  important  subject  that  I  knew 
was  impossible),  but  with  general  concurrence,  because 
I  knew  that,  if  it  were  brought  forward  under  other 
circumstances,  instead  of  producing  the  effect  I  had  wished, 
it  would  only  tend  to  revive  those  animosities  which  I  wished 
to  extinguish,  to  aggravate  those  difficulties  which  I  wished 
finally  to  remove.  Not  being  able,  from  the  circumstances  to 
which  I  have  alluded,  to  propose  the  measure  which  I  thought 
likely  to  be  productive  of  such  beneficial  effects,  I  did  then 
form  the  determination  not  to  press  it  at  any  period  unless  I 
thought  it  could  be  done  with  that  prospect  of  success,  and 
with  that  general  concurrence,  without  which  it  can  never  be 
beneficial.  When  I  use  the  term  general  concurrence,  I  am 
sure  I  shall  not  be  supposed  ever  to  have  been  so  visionary  as 
to  imagine  that  a  question  of  such  immense  importance,  and 
upon  which  men's  feelings  and  passions  are  so  strongly  excited, 


PITT  161 

could  ever  be  carried  with  perfect  unanimity  ;  but  I  mean 
with  that  general  concurrence  which  would  have  enabled  us 
to  gratify  the  wishes  of  one  party^  without  awakening  the  fears 
or  exciting  the  jealousy  of  the  other.  Whatever  gentlemen 
may  think  of  the  abstract  rights  of  the  petitioners,  or  of  the 
expediency  of  complying  with  the  prayer  of  their  petition,  I 
am  sure  they  will  agree  with  me  in  thinking  that  the  chance  of 
extinguishing  all  those  animosities  which  have  unfortunately 
prevailed,  and  of  producing  that  perfect  union  which  we  all 
wish,  must  depend  upon  the  combination  of  circumstances 
under  which  the  measure  was  brought  forward.  Not  having 
in  any  degree  changed  my  opinion  upon  this  subject,  regarding 
it  in  the  same  point  of  view  I  did  then,  and  retaining  the  same 
feelings,  I  must  say  that  at  the  present  moment  I  think  I  see 
a  little  chance,  I  should  rather  say  I  see  no  chance,  of  its  being 
carried  at  all,  certainly  not  in  that  way  which  I  meant,  and  in 
which  way  only  I  think  it  can  be  productive  of  real  advantage 
to  the  petitioners  or  of  benefit  to  the  State ;  I  mean  as  a  measure 
of  peace  and  conciliation. 

If  then,  Sir,  the  question  is  not  now  to  be  carried,  I  think 
that  to  agitate  it,  under  such  circumstances,  will  only  tend  to 
revive  those  dissensions  which  we  wish  to  extinguish,  to  awaken 
all  that  warmth  and  acrimony  of  discussion  which  has  hereto- 
fore prevailed,  and  to  excite  those  hopes,  which,  if  they  are  to 
be  disappointed,  may  be  productive  of  the  greatest  mischief. 
As  to  the  chance  of  carrying  the  question  at  present  with 
general  concurrence,  of  gratifying  the  Cathohcs  without 
offending  the  Protestants,  of  confirming  the  affections  of  the 
one  without  raising  the  suspicions  and  exciting  the  fears  of  the 
other,  not  only  in  Ireland  but  in  England,  I  confess  there 
appears  to  me  to  be  none.  I  lament  it  as  much  as  any  man 
can  do.  I  lament  that  the  impression  which  now  prevails 
has  taken  place ;  many  circumstances  have  combined  to 
produce  that  impression,  all  of  which  are  to  be  deplored.  I 
ask  any  gentleman  whether  he  does  not  believe,  looking  to  the 
members  of  the  established  Church,  of  the  nobility,  of  the  men 
of  property,  of  the  middling  and  respectable  classes  of  society 
— I  ask  him,  whether  he  does  not  believe,  looking  at  the  senti- 
ments of  the  mass  of  the  Protestants  of  this  country  and  of 
Ireland,  that  there  is  the  greatest  repugnance  to  this  measure, 
and  that  even  if  it  could  now  be  carried,  so  far  from  producing 

II — (21701 


162  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

conciliation  and  union,  it  would  tend,  on  the  contrary,  to  dis- 
appoint all  the  prospects  of  advantage  which  under  other 
circumstances  would  be  derived  from  it  ?  Even  those  gentle- 
men who  have  argued  the  most  strongly  in  favour  of  this 
measure  have  candidly  confessed  that,  in  the  present  state  of 
men's  minds  it  is  not  likely  to  be  carried.  I  am  sure  I  shall 
not  be  contradicted  when  I  say  that  ever  since  the  union  this 
subject  has  in  a  very  considerable  degree  attracted  public 
attention,  and  that  of  late,  notwithstanding  the  other  events 
which  have  occupied  the  public  mind,  it  has  been  the  subject 
of  much  conversation  both  in  public  and  private,  particularly 
since  the  Catholic  petition  has  been  presented,  and  since  the 
honourable  gentleman  has  given  notice  of  his  present  motion  ; 
and  I  should  disguise  my  real  sentiments  if  I  did  not  say  that 
at  present  the  prevailing  sentiment  is  strongly  against  this 
measure  :  What  circumstances  may  occur  to  overcome  that 
sentiment  it  is  not  for  me  to  predict  or  conjecture. 

In  speaking  of  the  probability  of  carrying  this  question  at 
this  time,  I  cannot  but  advert  to  what  fell  from  the  honourable 
gentleman  who  opened  the  debate  this  day  respecting  the 
decision  which  took  place  last  night  in  another  place.  I  know 
perfectly  well  that  no  man  can  mention  the  decision  of  another 
branch  of  the  legislature  for  the  purpose  of  influencing,  much 
less  of  controlling,  the  decision  of  this  House.  I  know  there  are 
many  instances  where  differences  of  opinion  have  prevailed 
between  this  and  the  other  House  of  Parliament,  in  which  the 
sentiments  of  this  House,  in  concurrence  with  the  public 
opinion  properly  expressed,  have  ultimately  prevailed.  I  am 
as  far  as  any  man.  Sir,  from  wishing  not  to  hold  high  the 
undoubted  privileges  of  this  House  ;  but  if  I  am  right  in  my 
general  view  of  this  subject,  I  think  the  determination  to  which 
I  am  alluding  ought  not  to  be  laid  out  of  our  consideration, 
because  it  goes  to  the  very  essence  of  the  measure  itself,  I 
mean  as  far  as  relates  to  the  practical  advantages  that  are  to 
be  derived  from  it.  Supposing,  then,  that  we  were  all  agreed 
as  to  the  propriety  of  granting  the  prayer  of  this  petition,  is 
it  not  our  duty  to  consider  what  bad  effects  might  be  produced 
by  the  marked  difference  which  would  then  subsist  between 
this  House  and  the  other  branch  of  the  legislature  upon  this 
subject  ?  If  carried  at  all  it  ought,  as  I  have  already  stated, 
to  be  carried  with  general  concurrence  ;  and  when  an  endeavour 


PITT  163 

is  made  to  carry  a  measure,  the  object  of  which  is  to  conciliate 
one  part  of  his  Majesty's  subjects,  care  must  be  taken  not 
to  shock  the  feehngs  of  a  much  larger  class  of  the  community. 
Under  such  circumstances,  when  such  an  opinion  has  been  given 
by  another  branch  of  the  legislature,  we  are  bound  to  take 
it  into  our  consideration  in  deciding  upon  the  Hne  of  conduct 
we  ought  to  adopt,  because  this  is  a  subject  in  which  no  man 
can  act  wisely  or  prudently  who  acts  entirely  from  his  own 
views,  or  his  own  feelings.  It  is  his  duty  to  his  country,  to 
the  Cathohcs,  and  to  the  community,  to  look  at  it  in  a  com- 
bined point  of  view,  to  consider  all  the  probable  effects  which 
the  carrying  of  it  (if  it  were  practicable)  with  such  a  strong 
sentiment  prevailing  against  it,  or  which  the  failing  to  carry 
it  may  produce.  Upon  this  part  of  the  subject  there  is  one 
point  on  which  I  wish  to  say  a  few  words. 

It  has  been  urged  by  some  gentlemen  that  we  ought  to  go 
into  a  committee,  whatever  we  may  resolve  to  do  at  last  ;  and 
some  of  the  minor  grievances  under  which  the  Catholics  are 
said  to  labour  have  been  pointed  out,  upon  which  it  is  said 
there  can  be  no  difference  of  opinion  on  the  propriety  of  granting 
them  rehef — such  as  the  circumstance  of  Catholics  engaged  in 
a  military  life  coming  over  to  this  country,  and  who  are  thereby 
exposed  to  the  operations  of  the  Test  Act,  to  which  they  are  not 
at  home.  Another  circumstance  which  has  been  mentioned  is 
that  the  Catholics  in  the  Army  are  not  only  not  to  be  allowed 
to  have  mass  performed,  but  they  are  compelled  to  attend 
Protestant  worship.  Sir,  I  contend  that  these  points  are  much 
too  important  to  induce  us  to  go  into  a  committee  upon  a 
petition  which  embraces  the  whole  of  this  important  subject, 
and  which  excites  the  hopes  and  fears  of  all  the  subjects  of  the 
United  Kingdom.  I  again  repeat  that  I  do  lament  that  this 
subject  has  now  been  brought  forward  ;  I  lament  for  the  sake 
of  the  Catholics  themselves  ;  I  lament  for  the  general  interests 
of  the  country,  that  gentlemen  have  thought  proper  to  agitate 
this  subject  at  this  moment.  That  gentlemen  have  a  perfect 
right  to  exercise  their  judgment  upon  this  subject  I  do  not 
deny  ;  I  do  not  complain  of  their  conduct  ;  I  only  lament 
that  they  have  felt  it  their  duty  to  bring  it  forward  at  this 
period,  and  under  the  present  circumstances  ;  when,  if  they 
were  to  succeed,  the  consequences  would  not  be  such  as  we  all 
desire,  and,  if  they  fail,  they  may  be  such  as  we  must  all  regret. 


164  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

And  now,  Sir,  let  me  ask  the  honourable  gentleman,  who  has 
brought  forward  the  present  motion,  and  who  fairly  avows 
that  his  object  is  that  everything  should  be  conceded  to  the 
Catholics  ;  let  me  ask  the  honourable  gentlemen  who  supported 
the  motion  last  night  with  such  a  splendour  of  eloquence,  what 
effect  this  is  likely  to  produce  upon  the  Catholics  themselves  ? 
When  the  honourable  member,  or  the  honourable  mover  of 
the  question,  talks  of  the  effect  of  disappointing  hopes  that 
have  been  raised,  I  trust  they  have  over-rated  and  exagger- 
ated it.  But  one  of  these  gentlemen  did  state  that,  amongst 
the  possible  causes  of  a  religious  feeling  having  mixed  and 
operated  in  the  late  rebellion,  might  be  enumerated  the  hope 
held  out  by  Lord  Fitzwilliam,  that  the  claims  of  the  Catholics 
would  be  taken  into  consideration.  They  allege  the  dis- 
appointment of  that  hope  as  one  of  the  causes  that  might  have 
tended  to  produce  the  rebellion.  If  that  be  their  conviction, 
what  must  they  think  who  wish  to  go  into  a  committee  upon 
the  petition,  and  yet  are  of  opinion  that  they  still  reserve  to 
themselves  the  freedom  of  rejecting  it  altogether,  or  of  rejecting 
it  in  its  most  important  parts  ?  I  submit  this  to  the  considera- 
tion of  the  House  shortly,  but  distinctly  ;  it  rests  upon  grounds 
so  obvious  and  so  strong,  that  it  will  be  taking  up  your  time 
unnecessarily  to  debate  upon  them.  I  submit  this  with  a 
wish  that  the  measure  when  brought  forward  will  be  carried 
with  a  general  concurrence.  But  the  circumstances  which 
have  hitherto  rendered  it  impossible  for  me  to  urge  and  press 
it,  make  it  impossible  for  me  to  urge  and  press  it  now  ;  feeling 
as  I  do,  that  to  press  it  and  to  fail,  or  to  press  it  and  even  carry 
it  with  such  strong  opposition  are  alternatives,  both  of  them 
so  mischievous,  that  it  will  be  difficult  to  decide  between  them. 
Seeing,  Sir,  what  are  the  opinions  of  the  times,  what  is  the 
situation  of  men's  minds,  and  the  sentiments  of  all  descriptions 
and  classes  of  the  other  branch  of  the  legislature,  and  even  the 
prevailing  opinion  of  this  House,  I  feel  that  I  should  act 
contrary  to  a  sense  of  my  duty,  and  even  inconsistently  with 
the  original  ground  upon  which  I  thought  the  measure  ought 
to  be  brought  forward,  if  I  countenanced  it  under  the  present 
circumstances,  or  if  I  hesitated  in  giving  my  decided  negative 
to  the  House  going  into  a  committee. 


CHARLES    JAMES   FOX  --^^ 

Fox  has  been  called,  not  without  reason,  the  greatest  leader-*! 
of  Opposition  that  this  country  ever  saw.     So  brief  a  period    i 
of   his    public   career   was  spent    in  office  that  he  must  be    j 
considered  rather  as  a  Parliamentary  critic  than  as  an  active^-/ 
statesman.      But,    of    course,    brilliant    debater   as   he   was, 
he  was  also  much  more.     He  surveyed  the  whole  European 
and  Colonial  situation.     He  treated  all  questions  from  the 
widest  point  of  view.    .Nor  did  he,  like  Pitt,  confine  himself  ^«- 
to  the  purpose  of  persuading  the  House  of  Commons.     Accus- 
tomed to  be  in  a  minority  there,  he  addressed  himself  also  to  ^ 
the  public  out  of  doors,  seeking  to  mould  opinion,  and  to 
exercise  an  influence  upon  the  tendencies  of  the  age.     He 
always  appealed  to  principles,  to  human  sentiment,  to  propo-  ^ 
sitions  of  more  general  scope  and  purport  than  were  required 
for  the  particular  business  in  hand.     By  his  eloquence  and  his 
arguments  he  wielded  a  double  power.     It  was  the  fusion  of 
reason  and  imagination  that    procured  for  him  his  greatest 
triumphs.     If  he  was  never  at  a  loss  for  a  word,  it  is  equally 
true  that  he  never  indulged  in  idle  declamation.     He  was  a 
master  of  debate  in  its  highest  sense,  of  the  reasons  and  illus- 
trations which  have  most  effect  upon  educated  and  intelligent 
men.     Elected  to  the  House  of  Commons  before  he  was  of  age, 
he  plunged  into  politics  on  the  Tory  side,  and  surpassed  all 
competitors  in  the  vehemence  of  his  denunciatory  rhetoric. 
But  he  very  soon  developed   an  independence  of  judgment 
which  led  to  his  dismissal  from  the  Treasury,  where  he  had 
been  a  junior  colleague  of  Lord  North,  and  he  became  an 
independent  member  with  a  fiery  spirit  which  no  ties  of  political 
allegiance  could  control.     No  one  could  say  that  he  always 
acted  in  accordance  with  his  own  interests.     Variable  as  his 

165 


166  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

course  was,  he  betrayed  no  one  who  trusted  him,  and  concih- 
ated  enemies  without  losing  friends.  His  behef  in  hberty 
was  neyer  shaken,  and  he  opposed  to  the  menaces  of  power 
a  dauntless  resolution  which  nothing  could  disturb.  He  had 
no  fear  of  being  misunderstood.  Believing  that  the  interests 
of  his  country  were  bound  up  with  the  freedom  of  the  Colonies, 
and  the  maintenance  of  peace,  he  did  not  hesitate  to  resist 
the  coercion  of  America  and  the  war  with  France.  His  theory 
of  the  French  Revolution  rests  upon  some  solid  evidence  as 
well  as  upon  some  plausible  conjecture.  It  is  at  least  a  tenable 
hypothesis  that  if  Austria  and  Russia  had  not  interfered  with 
France,  a  limited  monarchy  might  have  been  established  in 
that  country,  there  might  have  been  no  reign  of  terror,  and 
no  declaration  of  hostility  to  the  other  Governments  of  Europe. 
The  experiment  was  not  tried.  But  Fox  did  not  cease  from 
his  efforts  to  promote  peace  until  he  found  that  they  produced 
the  opposite  effect  to  what  he  intended.  He  held  that 
despotism  was  the  cause  of  revolutionary  excess,  and  that 
the  only  preservative  against  revolution  was  reform. 

Although  it  is  hard  to  distinguish  between  specimens  of  such 
great  and  varied  excellence,  the  best  examples  of  his  elo- 
quence are  probably  his  speech  on  peace  with  France  in  1800, 
his  speech  on  the  removal  of  Catholic  disabilities  in  1805,  and 
his  speech  on  the  erection  of  a  monument  to  Pitt  in  the  same 
year. 

Peace  with  France 
House  of  Commons.     Feb.  3rd,  1800 

Prefatory  Note. — This  was  the  last  effort  which  Fox  made  for  peace 
before  the  Treaty  of  Amiens. 

Mr.  Speaker,  at  so  late  an  hour  of  the  night,  I  am  sure  you 
will  do  me  the  justice  to  believe  that  I  do  not  mean  to  go  at 
length  into  the  discussion  of  this  great  question.  Exhausted 
as  the  attention  of  the  House  must  be,  and  unaccustomed  as 
I  have  been  of  late  to  attend  in  my  place,  nothing  but  the 
deep  sense  of  my  duty  could  have  induced  me  to  trouble  you  at 
all,  and  particularly  to  request  your  indulgence  at  such  an  hour. 


^  FOX  167 

Sir,  Jiy  honourable  and  learned  friend  (Mr.  Erskine)  has 
truly  said  that  the  present  is  a  new  era  in  the  war.  The  right 
honble.  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  feels  the  justice  of 
the  rer  lark  ;  for  by  travelling  back  to  the  commencement  of 
the  wa-,  and  referring  to  all  the  topics  and  arguments  which 
he  has  so  often  and  so  successfully  urged  to  the  House,  and 
by  whith  he  has  drawn  them  on  to  the  support  of  his  measures, 
he  is  forced  to  acknowledge  that,  at  the  end  of  seven  years' 
conflict,  we  are  come  but  to  a  new  era  in  the  war,  at  which  he 
thinks  it  necessary  only  to  press  all  his  former  arguments  to 
induce  us  to  persevere.  All  the  topics  which  have  so  often 
misled  us — all  the  reasoning  which  has  so  invariably  failed — 
all  the  lofty  predictions  which  have  so  constantly  been  falsified 
by  events — all  the  hopes  which  have  amused  the  sanguine, 
and  all  the  assurances  of  the  distress  and  weakness  of  the 
enemy  which  have  satisfied  the  unthinking,  are  again  enumer- 
ated and  advanced  as  arguments  for  our  continuing  the  war. 
What  !  at  the  end  of  seven  years  of  the  most  burdensome  and 
the  most  calamitous  struggle  that  this  country  was  ever 
engaged  in,  are  we  again  to  be  amused  with  notions  of  finance 
and  calculations  of  the  exhausted  resources  of  the  enemy, 
as  a  ground  of  confidence  and  of  hope  ?  Gracious  God  !  were 
we  not  told,  five  years  ago,  that  France  was  not  only  on  the 
brink,  but  that  she  was  actually  in  the  gulf  of  bankruptcy  ? 
Were  we  not  told,  as  an  unanswerable  argument  against 
treating,  that  she  could  not  hold  out  another  campaign — that 
nothing  but  peace  could  save  her — that  she  wanted  only 
time  to  recruit  her  exhausted  finances — that  to  grant  her 
repose,  was  to  grant  her  the  means  of  again  molesting  this 
country,  and  that  we  had  nothing  to  do  put  persevere  for  a 
short  time,  in  order  to  save  ourselves  for  ever  from  the  conse- 
quences of  her  ambition  and  her  Jacobinism  ?  What !  after  having 
gone  on  from  year  to  year  upon  assurances  like  these,  and 
after  having  seen  the  repeated  refutations  of  every  prediction, 
are  we  again  to  be  seriously  told  that  we  have  the  same  prospect 
of  success  on  the  same  identical  grounds  ?  And  without  any 
other  argument  or  security,  are  we  invited,  at  this  new  era  of 
the  war,  to  carry  it  on  upon  principles  which,  if  adopted, 
may  make  it  eternal  ?  If  the  right  honourable  gentleman 
shall  succeed  in  prevailing  on  Parliament  and  the  country  to 
adopt  the  principles  which  he  has  advanced  this  night,  I  see 


168  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

no  possible  termination  to  the  contest.  No  man  can  see  an 
end  to  it  ;  and  upon  the  assurances  and  predictions  which 
have  so  uniformly  failed,  are  we  called  upon,  not  merely  to 
refuse  all  negotiations  but  to  countenance  principles  and  views 
as  distant  from  wisdom  and  justice,  as  they  are  in  their  nature 
wild  and  impracticable. 

I  must  lament.  Sir,  in  common  with  every  friend  of  peace, 
the  harsh  and  unconciliating  language  which  ministers  have 
held  towards  the  French,  and  which  they  have  even  made  use 
of  in  their  answer  to  a  respectful  offer  of  negotiation.  Such 
language  has  ever  been  considered  as  extremely  unwise,  and 
has  ever  been  reprobated  by  diplomatic  men.  I  remember 
with  pleasure  the  terms  in  which  Lord  Malmesbury  at  Paris, 
in  the  year  1796,  replied  to  expressions  of  this  sort,  used  by 
M.  de  la  Croix.  He  justly  said,  "  that  offensive  and  injurious 
insinuations  were  only  calculated  to  throw  new  obstacles  in 
the  way  of  accommodation,  and  that  it  was  not  by  revolting 
reproaches,  nor  by  reciprocal  invective,  that  a  sincere  wish 
to  accomplish  the  great  work  of  pacification  could  be  evinced." 
Nothing  could  be  more  proper  nor  more  wise  than  this  language ; 
and  such  ought  ever  to  be  the  tone  and  conduct  of  men  entrusted 
with  the  very  important  task  of  treating  with  a  hostile  nation. 
Being  a  sincere  friend  to  peace,  I  must  say  with  Lord  Malmes- 
bury, that  it  is  not  by  reproaches  and  by  invective  that  we 
can  hope  for  a  reconciliation  ;  and  I  am  convinced  in  my  own 
mind  that  I  speak  the  sense  of  this  House,  and  of  a  majority 
of  the  people  of  this  country,  when  I  lament  that  any  unneces- 
sary recriminations  should  be  flung  out,  by  which  obstacles 
are  put  in  the  way  of  pacification.  I  believe  it  is  the  pre- 
vailing sentiment  of  the  people,  that  we  ought  to  abstain  from 
harsh  and  insulting  language  ;  and  in  common  with  them 
I  must  lament,  that  both  in  the  papers  of  Lord  Grenville,  and 
in  the  speeches  of  this  night,  such  licence  has  been  given  to 
invective  and  reproach.  For  the  same  reason  I  must  lament 
that  the  right  honourable  gentleman  has  thought  proper  to 
go  at  such  length,  and  with  such  severity  of  minute  investiga- 
tion into  all  the  early  circumstances  of  the  war,  which,  what- 
ever they  were,  are  nothing  to  the  present  purpose,  and  ought 
not  to  influence  the  present  feelings  of  the  House. 

I  certainly  shall  not  follow  him  into  all  the  minute  detail, 
though  I  do  not  agree  with  him  in  many  of  his  assertions.     I 


FOX  169 

do  not  know  what  impression  his  narrative  may  make  on  other 
gentlemen  ;  but  I  will  tell  him,  fairly  and  candidly,  he  has  not 
convinced  me.  I  continue  to  think,  and  until  I  see  better 
grounds  for  changing  my  opinion  than  any  that  the  right 
honourable  gentleman  has  this  night  produced,  I  shall  continue 
to  think  and  to  say,  plainly  and  explicitly,  that  this  country 
was  the  aggressor  in  the  war.  But  with  regard  to  Austria 
and  Prussia — is  there  a  man  who,  for  one  moment  can  dispute 
that  they  were  the  aggressors  ?  It  will  be  vain  for  the  right 
honourable  gentleman  to  enter  into  long  and  plausible  reason- 
ing against  the  evidence  of  documents  so  clear,  so  decisive, — 
so  frequently,  so  thoroughly  investigated.  The  unfortunate 
Louis  XVI  himself,  as  well  as  those  who  were  in  his  confidence, 
have  borne  decisive  testimony  to  the  fact  that  between  him 
and  the  Emperor  there  was  an  intimate  correspondence, 
and  a  perfect  understanding.  Do  I  mean  by  this  that  a  posi- 
tive treaty  was  entered  into  for  the  dismemberment  of  France  ? 
Certainly  not,  but  no  man  can  read  the  declarations  which 
were  made  at  Mantua,  as  well  as  at  Pilnitz,  as  they  are  given 
by  M.  Bertrand  de  Moleville,  without  acknowledging  that 
there  was  not  merely  an  intention,  but  a  declaration  of  an 
intention,  on  the  part  of  the  great  powers  of  Germany,  to 
interfere  in  the  internal  affairs  of  France,  for  the  purpose  of 
regulating  the  government  against  the  opinion  of  the  people. 
This,  though  not  a  plan  for  the  partition  of  France,  was,  in  the 
eye  of  reason  and  common  sense,  an  aggression  against  France. 
The  right  honourable  gentleman  denies  that  there  was  such  a 
thing  as  the  treaty  of  Pilnitz.  Granted.  But  was  there  not 
a  declaration  which  amounted  to  an  act  of  hostile  aggression  ? 
The  two  powers,  the  Emperor  of  Germany  and  the  King  of 
Prussia,  made  a  public  declaration,  that  they  were  determined 
to  employ  their  forces  in  conjunction  with  those  of  the  other 
sovereigns  of  Europe,  '*  to  put  the  King  of  France  in  a  situation 
to  estabhsh,  in  perfect  hberty,  the  foundations  of  a  monarchical 
government,  equally  agreeable  to  the  rights  of  sovereigns  and 
the  welfare  of  the  French,  whenever  the  other  princes  should 
agree  to  co-operate  with  them;  then,  and  in  that  case,  their 
Majesties  were  determined  to  act  promptly,  and  by  mutual 
consent,  with  the  forces  necessary  to  obtain  the  end  proposed 
by  all  of  them.  In  the  meantime  they  declared  that  they 
would  give  orders  for  their  troops  to  be  ready  for  actual  service." 


170  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

Now,  I  would  ask  gentlemen  to  lay  their  hands  upon  their 
hearts,  and  say,  what  the  fair  construction  of  this  declaration 
was — whether  it  was  not  a  menace  and  an  insult  to  France, 
since,  in  direct  terms,  it  declared,  that  whenever  the  other 
powers  should  concur,  they  would  attack  France,  then  at  peace 
with  them,  and  then  employed  only  in  domestic  and  internal 
regulations  ?  Let  us  suppose  the  case  to  be  that  of  Great 
Britain.  Will  any  gentleman  say,  if  two  of  the  great  powers 
should  make  a  public  declaration,  that  they  were  determined 
to  make  an  attack  upon  this  Kingdom  as  soon  as  circumstances 
should  favour  their  intention  ;  that  they  only  waited  for  this 
occasion  ;  and  that  in  the  meantime  they  would  keep  their 
forces  ready  for  the  purpose  ;  that  it  would  not  be  considered 
by  the  Parliament  and  the  people  of  this  country  as  an  hostile 
aggression  ?  And  is  there  an  Englishman  in  existence,  who 
is  such  a  friend  to  peace  as  to  say,  that  the  nation  could  retain 
its  honour  and  dignity  if  it  should  sit  down  under  such  a 
menace  ?  I  know  too  well  what  is  due  to  the  national  character 
of  England,  to  believe  that  there  would  be  two  opinions  on  the 
case,  if  thus  put  home  to  our  own  feelings  and  understanding. 
We  must,  then,  respect  in  others  the  indignation  which  such  an 
act  would  excite  in  ourselves  ;  and  when  we  see  it  established 
on  the  most  indisputable  testimony,  that  both  at  Pilnitz  and 
at  Mantua  declarations  were  made  to  this  effect,  it  is  idle  to 
say,  that  as  far  as  the  Emperor  and  the  King  of  Prussia  were 
concerned,  they  were  not  the  aggressors  in  the  war. 

"  Oh  !  but  the  decree  of  the  19th  of  November,  1792  !  that 
at  least,"  the  right  honourable  gentleman  says,  "  you  must 
allow  to  be  an  act  of  aggression,  not  only  against  England,  but 
against  all  the  sovereigns  of  Europe."  I  am  not  one  of  those. 
Sir,  who  attach  most  interest  to  the  general  and  indiscriminate 
provocations  thrown  out  at  random,  like  this  resolution  of  the 
19th  of  November,  1792.  I  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  the 
dignity  of  any  people  to  notice  and  to  apply  to  themselves 
menaces  flung  out  without  particular  allusion,  which  are  always 
unwise  in  the  power  which  uses  them,  and  which  it  is  still 
more  unwise  to  treat  with  seriousness.  But,  if  any  such  idle 
and  general  provocation  to  nations  is  given,  either  in  insolence 
or  in  folly,  by  any  government,  it  is  a  clear  first  principle,  that 
an  explanation  is  the  thing  which  a  magnanimous  nation, 
feeling  itself  aggrieved,  ought  to  demand ;  and  if  an  explanation 


FOX  171 

be  given  which  is  not  satisfactory,  it  ought  clearly  and 
distinctly  to  say  so.  There  ought  to  be  no  ambiguity,  no 
reserve,  on  the  occasion.  Now  we  all  know,  from  documents 
on  our  table,  that  M.  Chauvelin  did  give  an  explanation  of  this 
silly  decree.  He  declared  in  the  name  of  his  government, 
"  that  it  was  never  meant  that  the  French  Government  should 
favour  insurrections  ;  that  the  decree  was  applicable  only  to 
those  people  who,  after  having  acquired  their  liberty  by 
conquest,  should  demand  the  assistance  of  the  republic  ;  but 
that  France  would  respect,  not  only  the  independence  of 
England,  but  also  that  of  her  allies  with  whom  she  was  not  at 
war."  This  was  the  explanation  given  of  the  offensive  decree. 
But  this  explanation  was  not  satisfactory  !  Did  you  say  so 
to  M.  Chauvelin  ?  Did  you  tell  him  that  you  were  not  content 
with  this  explanation  ?  And  when  you  dismissed  him  after- 
wards, on  the  death  of  the  King,  did  you  say  that  this  explana- 
tion was  unsatisfactory  ?  No  ;  you  did  no  such  thing  ;  and 
I  contend,  that  unless  you  demanded  farther  explanations, 
and  they  were  refused,  you  have  no  right  to  urge  the  decree 
of  the  19th  of  November  as  an  act  of  aggression.  In  all  your 
conferences  and  correspondence  with  M.  Chauvelin,  did  you 
hold  out  to  him  what  terms  would  satisfy  you  ?  Did  you  give 
the  French  the  power  or  the  means  of  settling  the  misunder- 
standing which  that  decree,  or  any  other  of  the  points  at  issue 
had  created  ?  I  contend,  that  when  a  nation  refuses  to  state 
to  another  the  thing  which  would  satisfy  her,  she  shows  that 
she  is  not  actuated  by  a  desire  to  preserve  peace  between  them  ; 
and  I  aver,  that  this  was  the  case  here.  The  Schelt,  for 
instance,  you  now  say  that  the  navigation  of  the  Schelt  was 
one  of  your  causes  of  complaint.  Did  you  explain  yourself 
on  that  subject  ?  Did  you  make  it  one  of  the  grounds  for  the 
dismissal  of  M.  Chauvelin  ?  Sir,  I  repeat  it,  a  nation,  to  justify 
itself  in  appealing  to  the  last  solemn  resort,  ought  to  prove 
that  it  had  taken  every  possible  means,  consistent  with  dignity, 
to  demand  the  reparation  which  would  be  satisfactory,  and  if 
she  refused  to  explain  what  would  be  satisfactory,  she  did  not 
do  her  duty,  nor  exonerate  herself  from  the  charge  of  being 
the  aggressor. 

The  right  honourable  gentleman  has  this  night,  for  the 
first  time,  produced  an  important  paper — the  instructions 
which  were  given  to  his  Majesty's  minister  at  the  Court  of  St. 


172  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

Petersburg,  about  the  end  of  the  year  1792,  to  interest  her 
Imperial  Majesty  to  join  her  efforts  with  those  of  his  Britannic 
Majesty,  to  prevent,  by  their  joint  mediation,  the  evils  of  a 
general  war.  Of  this  paper,  and  of  the  existence  of  any  such 
document,  I  for  one  was  entirely  ignorant  ;  but  I  have  no 
hesitation  in  saying,  that  I  completely  approve  of  the  instruc- 
tions which  appear  to  have  been  given  ;  and  I  am  sorry  to  see 
the  right  honourable  gentleman  disposed  rather  to  take  blame 
to  himself  than  credit  for  having  written  it.  He  thinks  that 
he  shall  be  subject  to  the  imputation  of  having  been  rather 
too  slow  to  apprehend  the  dangers  with  which  the  French 
Revolution  was  fraught  than  that  he  was  forward  and  hasty — 
"  Quod  solum  excusat,  hoc  solum  miror  in  illo."  I  do  not  agree 
with  him  on  the  idea  of  censure.  I  by  no  means  think  that  he 
was  blamable  for  too  much  confidence  in  the  good  intentions  of 
the  French.  I  think  the  tenor  and  composition  of  this  paper 
was  excellent — the  instructions  conveyed  in  it  wise  ;  and  that 
it  wanted  but  one  essential  thing  to  have  entitled  it  to  general 
approbation — namely,  to  be  acted  upon.  The  clear  nature 
and  intent  of  that  paper,  I  take  to  be,  that  our  ministers  were 
to  solicit  the  court  of  Petersburg  to  join  with  them  in  a  declara- 
tion to  the  French  Government,  stating  explicitly  what  course 
of  conduct,  with  respect  to  their  foreign  relations,  they  thought 
necessary  to  the  general  peace  and  security  of  Europe,  and 
what,  if  complied  with,  would  have  induced  them  to  mediate 
for  that  purpose — a  proper,  wise  and  legitimate  course  of  pro- 
ceeding. Now,  I  ask.  Sir,  whether,  if  this  paper  had  been 
communicated  to  Paris  at  the  end  of  the  year  1792,  instead  of 
Petersburg,  it  would  not  have  been  productive  of  most 
seasonable  benefits  to  mankind ;  and,  by  informing  the  French 
in  time  of  the  means  by  which  they  might  have  secured  the 
mediation  of  Great  Britain,  have  not  only  avoided  the  rupture 
of  this  country,  but  have  also  restored  general  peace  to  the 
continent  ?  The  paper.  Sir,  was  excellent  in  its  intentions  ; 
but  its  merit  was  all  in  the  composition.  It  was  a  fine  theory, 
which  ministers  did  not  think  proper  to  carry  into  practice. 
Nay,  on  the  contrary,  at  the  very  time  they  were  drawing 
up  this  paper,  they  were  insulting  M.  Chauvehn,  in  every  way, 
until  about  the  23rd  or  24th  of  January,  1793,  when  they 
finally  dismissed  him,  without  stating  any  one  ground  upon 
which  they  were  willing  to  preserve  terms  with  the  French. 


:F0X  173 

"  But  France  "  it  seems,  "  then  declared  war  against  us  ; 
and  she  was  the  aggressor,  because  the  declaration  came  from 
her."  Let  us  look  at  the  circumstances  of  this  transaction 
on  both  sides.  Undoubtedly,  the  declaration  was  made  by 
her  ;  but  is  a  declaration  the  only  thing  that  constitutes  the 
commencement  of  a  war?  Do  gentlemen  recollect  that,  in 
consequence  of  a  dispute  about  the  commencement  of  war, 
respecting  the  capture  of  a  number  of  ships,  an  article  was 
inserted  in  our  treaty  with  France,  by  which  it  was  positively 
stipulated,  that  in  future,  to  prevent  all  disputes,  the  act  of 
the  dismissal  of  a  minister  from  either  of  the  two  courts  should 
be  held  and  considered  as  tantamount  to  a  declaration  of  war  ? 
I  mention  this.  Sir,  because,  when  we  are  idly  employed  in 
this  retrospect  of  the  origin  of  a  war,  which  has  lasted  so  many 
years,  instead  of  fixing  our  eyes  only  to  the  contemplation  of 
the  means  of  putting  an  end  to  it,  we  seem  disposed  to  over- 
look everything  on  our  parts,  and  to  search  only  for  grounds 
of  imputation  on  the  enemy.  I  almost  think  it  an  insult  on 
the  House  to  detain  them  with  this  sort  of  examination.  If, 
Sir,  France  was  the  aggressor,  as  the  right  honourable  gentleman 
says  she  was  throughout,  why  did  not  Prussia  call  upon  us  for 
the  stipulated  number  of  troops,  according  to  the  article  of 
the  defensive  treaty  of  alliance  subsisting  between  us,  by  which, 
in  case  either  of  the  contracting  parties  was  attacked,  they  had 
a  right  to  demand  the  stipulated  aid  ?  And  the  same  thing, 
again,  may  be  asked  when  we  were  attacked.  The  right 
honourable  gentleman  might  here  accuse  himself,  indeed,  of 
reserve  ;  but  it  unfortunately  happened,  that  at  the  time, 
the  point  was  too  clear  on  which  side  the  aggression  lay. 
Prussia  was  too  sensible  that  the  war  could  not  entitle  her  to 
make  the  demand,  and  that  it  was  not  a  case  within  the  scope 
of  the  defensive  treaty.  This  is  evidence  worth  a  volume  of 
subsequent  reasoning  ;  for  if,  at  the  time  when  all  the  facts 
were  present  to  their  minds,  they  could  not  take  advantage 
of  existing  treaties,  and  that,  too,  when  the  courts  were  on  the 
most  friendly  terms  with  one  another,  it  will  be  manifest  to 
every  thinking  man  that  they  were  sensible  they  were  not 
authorized  to  make  the  demand. 

I  really,  Sir,  cannot  think  it  necessary  to  follow  the  right 
honourable  gentleman  into  all  the  minute  details  which  he 
has  thought  proper  to  give  us  respecting  the  first  aggression  ; 


174  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

but,  that  Austria  and  Prussia  were  the  aggressors,  not  a  man 
in  any  country,  who  has  ever  given  himself  the  trouble  to  think 
at  all  on  the  subject,  can  doubt.  Nothing  could  be  more 
hostile  than  their  whole  proceedings.  Did  they  not  declare  to 
France,  that  it  was  their  internal  concerns,  not  their  external 
proceedings,  which  provoked  them  to  confederate  against  her  ? 
Look  back  to  the  proclamations  with  which  they  set  out. 
Read  the  declarations  which  they  made  themselves,  to  justify 
their  appeal  to  arms.  They  did  not  pretend  to  fear  their 
ambition,  their  conquests,  their  troubling  their  neighbours  ; 
but  they  accused  them  of  new-modelling  their  own  government. 
They  said  nothing  of  their  aggressions  abroad  ;  they  spoke 
only  of  their  clubs  and  societies  at  Paris. 

Sir,  in  all  this,  I  am  not  justifying  the  French — I  am  not 
striving  to  absolve  them  from  blame,  either  in  their  internal 
or  external  policy.  I  think,  on  the  contrary,  that  their  suc- 
cessive rulers  have  been  as  bad  and  as  execrable,  in  various 
instances,  as  any  of  the  most  despotic  and  unprincipled  govern- 
ments that  the  world  ever  saw.  I  think  it  impossible.  Sir, 
that  it  should  have  been  otherwise.  It  was  not  to  be  expected 
that  the  French,  when  once  engaged  in  Foreign  wars,  should 
not  endeavour  to  spread  destruction  around  them,  and  to  form 
plans  of  aggrandisement  and  plunder  on  every  side.  Men 
bred  in  the  school  of  the  House  of  Bourbon  could  not  be 
expected  to  act  otherwise.  They  could  not  have  lived  so  long 
under  their  ancient  masters,  without  imbibing  the  restless 
ambition,  the  perfidy,  and  the  insatiable  spirit  of  the  race. 
They  have  imitated  the  practice  of  their  great  prototype,  and, 
through  their  whole  career  of  mischief  and  of  crimes,  have  done 
no  more  than  servilely  trace  the  steps  of  their  own  Louis  XIV. 
If  they  have  overrun  countries  and  ravaged  them,  they  have 
done  it  upon  Bourbon  principles.  If  they  have  ruined  and 
dethroned  sovereigns,  it  is  entirely  after  the  Bourbon  manner. 
If  they  have  even  fraternized  with  the  people  of  foreign  countries 
and  pretended  to  make  their  cause  their  own,  they  have  only 
faithfuUy  followed  the  Bourbon  example.  They  have  con- 
stantly had  Louis,  the  Grand  Monarque,  in  the  eye.  But  it 
may  be  said,  that  this  example  was  long  ago,  and  that  we  ought 
not  to  refer  to  a  period  so  distant.  True,  it  is  a  distant  period 
as  applied  to  a  man,  but  not  so  to  the  principle.  The  principle 
was  never  extinct ;    nor  has  its  operation  been  suspended  in 


TOX  175 

France,  except,  perhaps,  for  a  short  interval,  during  the  admin- 
istration of  Cardinal  Fleury ;  and  my  complaint  against 
the  republic  of  France  is,  not  that  she  has  generated  new  crimes, 
not  that  she  has  promulgated  new  mischief,  but  that  she  has 
adopted  and  acted  upon  the  principles  which  have  been  so 
fatal  to  Europe,  under  the  practice  of  the  House  of  Bourbon. 
It  is  said,  that  wherever  the  French  have  gone,  they  have 
introduced  revolution  ;  that  they  have  sought  for  the  means 
of  disturbing  neighbouring  states,  and  have  not  been  content 
with  mere  conquest.  What  is  this  but  adopting  the  ingenious 
scheme  of  Louis  XIV  ?  He  was  not  content  with  merely 
overrunning  a  state  ;  whenever  he  came  into  a  new  territory, 
he  established  what  he  called  his  chamber  of  claims  ;  a  most 
convenient  device,  by  which  he  inquired,  whether  the  con- 
quered country  or  province  had  any  dormant  or  disputed 
claims,  any  cause  of  complaint,  any  unsettled  demand  upon 
any  other  state  or  province — upon  which  he  might  wage  war 
upon  such  a  state,  thereby  discover  again  ground  for  new 
devastation,  and  gratify  his  ambition  by  new  acquisitions. 
WTiat  have  the  republicans  done  more  atrocious,  more  Jaco- 
binical, than  this  ?  Louis  went  to  war  with  Holland.  His 
pretext  was,  that  Holland  had  not  treated  him  with  sufficient 
respect — a  very  just  and  proper  cause  for  war  indeed ! 
This,  Sir,  leads  me  to  an  example  which  I  think  seasonable, 
and  worthy  the  attention  of  his  Majesty's  ministers.  When 
our  Charles  II,  as  a  short  exception  to  the  pohcy  of  his  reign, 
made  the  triple  alliance  for  the  protection  of  Europe,  and 
particularly  of  Holland,  against  the  ambition  of  Louis  XIV, 
what  was  the  conduct  of  that  great,  virtuous  and  most  able 
statesman,  M.  de  Witt,  when  the  confederates  came  to  delib- 
erate on  the  terms  on  which  they  should  treat  with  the  French 
monarch  ?  When  it  was  said  that  he  had  made  unprincipled 
conquests,  and  that  he  ought  to  be  forced  to  surrender  them 
all,  what  was  the  language  of  that  great  wise  man  ?  "  No," 
said  he  ;  "I  think  we  ought  not  to  look  back  to  the  origin 
of  the  war,  so  much  as  the  means  of  putting  an  end  of  it.  If 
you  had  united  in  time  to  prevent  these  conquests,  well ;  but, 
now  that  he  has  made  them,  he  stands  upon  the  ground  of 
conquest,  and  we  must  agree  to  treat  with  him,  not  with 
reference  to  the  origin  of  the  conquest,  but  with  regard  to  his 
present  posture.     He  had  those  places,  and  some  of  them  we 


176  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

must  be  content  to  give  up  as  the  means  of  peace  ;  for  con- 
quest will  always  successfully  set  up  its  claims  to  indemnifica- 
tion." Such  was  the  language  of  this  minister,  who  was  the 
ornament  of  his  time  ;  and  such,  in  my  mind,  ought  to  be  the 
language  of  statesmen,  with  regard  to  the  French,  at  this  day. 
The  same  ought  to  have  been  said  at  the  formation  of  the 
confederacy.  It  was  true  that  the  French  had  overrun  Savoy  ; 
but  they  had  overrun  it  on  Bourbon  principles  ;  and  having 
gained  this  and  other  conquests  before  the  confederacy  was 
formed,  they  ought  to  have  treated  with  her  rather  for  future 
security,  than  for  past  correction.  States  in  possession, 
whether  monarchical  or  republican,  will  claim  indemnity  in 
proportion  to  their  success  ;  and  it  will  never  be  so  much 
inquired,  by  what  right  they  gained  possession,  as  by  what 
means  they  can  be  prevented  from  enlarging  their  depredations. 
Such  is  the  safe  practice  of  the  world  ;  and  such  ought  to  have 
been  the  conduct  of  the  powers  when  the  reduction  of  Savoy 
made  them  coalesce. 

The  right  honourable  gentleman  may  know  more  of  the 
secret  particulars  of  their  overrunning  Savoy  than  I  do  ;  but 
certainly,  as  they  have  come  to  my  knowledge,  it  was  a  most 
Bourbonlike  act.  A  great  and  justly  celebrated  historian, 
whom  I  will  not  call  a  foreigner — I  mean  Mr.  Hume  (a  writer 
certainly  estimable  in  many  particulars,  but  who  was  a 
childish  lover  of  princes) — talks  of  Louis  XIV  in  very  magni- 
ficent terms  ;  but  he  says  of  him,  that,  though  he  managed  his 
enterprises  with  skill  and  bravery,  he  was  unfortunate  in  this, 
that  he  never  got  a  good  and  fair  pretence  for  war.  This  he 
reckons  among  his  misfortunes  !  Can  we  say  more  of  the 
republican  French  ?  In  seizing  on  Savoy  I  think  they  made 
use  of  the  words,  "  convenances  morales  et  physiques."  These 
were  their  reasons.  A  most  Bourbonlike  phrase  !  And  I 
therefore  contend,  that  as  we  never  scrupled  to  treat  with  the 
princes  of  the  House  of  Bourbon  on  account  of  their  rapacity, 
their  thirst  of  conquest,  their  violation  of  treaties,  their  perfidy, 
and  their  restless  spirit,  so  we  ought  not  to  refuse  to  treat  with 
their  republican  imitators.  Ministers  could  not  pretend 
ignorance  of  the  unprincipled  manner  in  which  the  French 
had  seized  on  Savoy.  The  Sardinian  minister  complained  of 
the  aggression,  and  yet  no  stir  was  made  about  it.  The  Courts 
of  Europe  stood  by  and  saw  the  outrage  ;     and  our  ministers 


FOX  177 

saw  it.  The  right  honourable  gentleman  will  in  vain,  therefore, 
exert  his  powers  to  persuade  me  of  the  interest  he  takes  in  the 
preservation  of  the  rights  of  nations,  since,  at  the  moment 
when  an  interference  might  have  been  made  in  effect,  no  step 
was  taken,  no  remonstrance  made,  no  mediation  negotiated 
to  stop  the  career  of  conquest.  All  the  pretended  and  hypo- 
critical sensibility  for  the  **  rights  of  nations,  and  for  social 
order,"  with  which  we  have  since  been  stunned,  cannot  impose 
upon  those  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  look  back  to  the  period 
when  this  sensibility  ought  to  have  roused  us  into  seasonable 
exertion.  At  that  time,  however,  the  right  honourable  gentle- 
man makes  it  his  boast,  that  he  was  prevented,  by  a  sense  of 
neutrality,  from  taking  any  measures  of  precaution  on  the 
subject.  I  do  not  give  the  right  honourable  gentleman  much 
credit  for  his  spirit  of  neutrality  on  the  occasion.  It  flowed 
from  the  sense  of  the  country  at  the  time,  the  great  majority 
of  which  was  clearly  and  decidedly  against  all  interruptions 
being  given  to  the  French  in  their  desire  of  regulating  their  own 
internal  government. 

But  this  neutrality,  which  respected  only  the  internal  rights 
of  the  French,  and  from  which  the  people  of  England  would 
never  have  departed  but  for  the  impolitic  and  hypocritical 
cant  which  was  set  up  to  rouse  their  jealousy  and  adarm  their 
fears,  was  very  different  from  the  great  principle  of  pohtical 
prudence  which  ought  to  have  actuated  the  councils  of  the 
nation,  on  seeing  the  first  steps  of  France  towards  a  career  of 
external  conquest.  My  opinion  is,  that  when  the  unfortunate 
King  of  France  offered  to  us,  in  the  letter  delivered  by  M. 
Chauvelin  and  M.  Talleyrand,  and  even  entreated  us  to  mediate 
between  him  and  the  allied  powers  of  Austria  and  Prussia, 
they  ought  to  have  accepted  the  offer,  and  exerted  their 
influence  to  save  Europe  from  the  consequence  of  a  system 
which  was  then  beginning  to  manifest  itself.  It  was,  at  least, 
a  question  of  prudence  ;  and  as  we  had  never  refused  to  treat 
and  to  mediate  with  the  old  princes  on  account  of  their  ambi- 
tion or  their  perfidy,  we  ought  to  have  been  equally  ready  now, 
when  the  same  principles  were  acted  upon  by  other  men.  I 
must  doubt  the  sensibility  which  could  be  so  cold  and  so 
indifferent  at  the  proper  moment  of  its  activity.  I  fear  that 
there  were  at  that  moment  the  germs  of  ambition  rising  in  the 
mind  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman,  and  that  he  was 

12— (2170) 


178  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

beginning,   like   others,    to   entertain   hopes   that   something 
might  be  obtained  out  of  the  coming  confusion. 

What  but  such  a  sentiment  could  have  prevented  him  from 
overlooking  the  fair  occasion  that  was  offered  for  preventing 
the  calamities  with  which  Europe  was  threatened  ?  What 
but  some  such  interested  principle  could  have  made  him  forego 
the  truly  honourable  task,  by  which  his  administration  would 
have  displayed  its  magnanimity  and  its  power  ?  But  for  some 
such  feeling,  would  not  this  country,  both  in  wisdom  and  in 
dignity,  have  interfered,  and  in  conjunction  with  the  other 
powers,  have  said  to  France,  '*  You  ask  for  a  mediation  ;  we 
will  mediate  with  candour  and  sincerity,  but  we  will  at  the  same 
time  declare  to  you  our  apprehensions.  We  do  not  trust  to 
your  assertion  of  a  determination  to  avoid  all  foreign  conquest, 
and  that  you  are  desirous  only  of  settling  your  own  constitu- 
tion, because  your,  language  is  contradicted  by  experience 
and  the  evidence  of  facts.  You  are  Frenchmen,  and  you  cannot 
so  soon  have  thrown  off  the  Bourbon  principles  in  which  you 
were  educated.  You  have  already  imitated  the  bad  practice 
of  your  princes  ;  you  have  seized  on  Savoy,  without  a  colour 
of  right.  But  here  we  take  our  stand.  Thus  far  you  have 
gone,  and  we  cannot  help  it ;  but  you  must  go  no  farther. 
We  will  tell  you  distinctly  what  we  shall  consider  as  an  attack 
on  the  balance  and  the  security  of  Europe  ;  and,  as  the  con- 
ditions of  our  interference.  We  will  tell  you  also  the  securities 
that  we  think  essential  to  the  general  repose."  This  ought 
to  have  been  the  language  of  his  Majesty's  ministers  when  their 
mediation  was  solicited  ;  and  something  of  this  kind  they 
evidently  thought  of  when  they  sent  the  instructions  to  Peters- 
burg which  they  have  mentioned  this  night,  but  upon  which 
they  never  acted.  Having  not  done  so,  I  say  they  have  no 
claim  to  talk  now  about  the  violated  right  of  Europe,  about 
the  aggression  of  the  French  and  about  the  origin  of  the  war, 
in  which  this  country  was  so  suddenly  afterwards  plunged. 
Instead  of  this,  what  did  they  do  ?  They  hung  back  ;  they 
avoided  explanation  ;  they  gave  the  French  no  means  of 
satisfying  them  ;  and  I  repeat  my  proposition — when  there  is 
a  question  of  peace  and  war  between  two  nations,  that  govern- 
ment feels  itself  in  the  wrong  which  refuses  to  state  with 
clearness  and  precision  what  she  would  consider  as  a  satisfaction 
and  a  pledge  of  peace. 


FOX  179 

Sir,  if  I  understand  the  true  precepts  of  the  Christian  rehgion, 
as  set  forth  in  the  New  Testament,  I  must  be  permitted  to  say, 
that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  a  rule  or  doctrine  by  which  we 
are  directed,  or  can  be  justified,  in  waging  a  war  for  rehgion. 
The  idea  is  subversive  of  the  very  foundations  upon  which 
it  stands,  which  are  those  of  peace  and  goodwill  among  men. 
Religion  never  was  and  never  could  be,  a  justifiable  cause  of 
war  ;  but  it  has  been  too  often  grossly  used  as  the  pretext  and 
the  apology  for  the  most  unprincipled  wars. 

I  have  already  said,  and  I  repeat  it,  that  the  conduct  of  the 
French  to  foreign  nations  cannot  be  justified.  They  have 
given  great  cause  of  offence,  but  certainly  not  to  all  countries 
alike.  The  right  honourable  gentlemen  opposite  to  me  have 
made  an  indiscriminate  catalogue  of  all  the  countries  which 
the  French  have  offended,  and,  in  their  eagerness  to  throw 
odium  on  the  nation,  have  taken  no  pains  to  investigate  the 
sources  of  their  several  quarrels.  I  will  not  detain  the  House 
by  entering  into  the  long  detail  which  has  been  given  of  their 
aggressions  and  their  violences  ;  but  let  me  mention  Sardinia 
as  one  instance  which  has  been  strongly  insisted  upon.  Did 
the  French  attack  Sardinia  when  at  peace  with  them  ?  No 
such  thing.  The  King  of  Sardinia  had  accepted  of  a  subsidy 
from  Great  Britain  ;  and  Sardinia  was,  to  all  intents  and 
purposes,  a  belligerent  power.  Several  other  instances  might 
be  mentioned ;  but  though,  perhaps,  in  the  majority  of 
instances,  the  French  may  be  unjustifiable,  is  this  the  moment 
for  us  to  dwell  upon  these  enormities — to  waste  our  time,  and 
inflame  our  passions,  by  recriminating  upon  each  other  ? 
There  is  no  end  to  such  a  war.  I  have  somewhere  read,  I  think 
in  Sir  Walter  Raleigh's  History  of  the  World,  of  a  most  bloody 
and  fatal  battle  which  was  fought  by  two  opposite  armies,  in 
which  almost  all  the  combatants  on  both  sides  were  killed, 
"  because,"  says  the  historian,  "  though  they  had  offensive 
weapons  on  both  sides,  they  had  none  for  defence."  So,  in 
this  war  of  words,  if  we  are  to  use  only  offensive  weapons,  if 
we  are  to  indulge  only  in  invective  and  abuse,  the  contest  must 
be  eternal.  If  this  war  of  reproach  and  invective  is  to  be 
countenanced,  may  not  the  French  with  equal  reason  com- 
plain of  the  outrages  and  the  horrors  committed  by  the  powers 
opposed  to  them  ?  If  we  must  not  treat  with  the  French  on 
account  of  the  iniquity  of  their  former  transactions,  ought  we  not 


180  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

to  be  as  scrupulous  of  connecting  ourselves  with  other  powers 
equally  criminal  ?  Surely,  Sir,  if  we  must  be  thus  rigid  in 
scrutinizing  the  conduct  of  an  enemy,  we  ought  to  be  equally 
careful  in  not  committing  our  honour  and  our  safety  with  an 
ally  who  has  manifested  the  same  want  of  respect  for  the  rights 
of  other  nations.  Surely,  if  it  is  material  to  know  the  character 
of  a  power  with  whom  you  are  only  about  to  treat  for  peace, 
it  is  more  material  to  know  the  character  of  allies,  with  whom 
you  are  about  to  enter  into  the  closest  connection  of  friendship, 
and  for  whose  exertions  you  are  about  to  pay. 

Now,  Sir,  what  was  the  conduct  of  your  own  allies  to  Poland  ? 
Is  there  a  single  atrocity  of  the  French,  in  Italy,  in  Switzer- 
land, in  Egypt,  if  you  please,  more  unprincipled  and  inhuman 
than  that  of  Russia,  Austria  and  Prussia,  in  Poland  ?  What 
has  there  been  in  the  conduct  of  the  French  to  foreign  powers  ; 
what  in  the  violation  of  solemn  treaties ;  what  in  the  plunder, 
devastation,  and  dismemberment  of  unoffending  countries  ; 
what  in  the  horrors  and  murders  perpetuated  upon  the  sub- 
dued victims  of  their  rage  in  any  district  which  they  have  over- 
run, worse  than  the  conduct  of  those  three  great  powers,  in 
the  miserable,  devoted,  and  trampled-on  kingdom  of  Poland, 
and  who  have  been,  or  are,  our  allies  in  this  war  for  religion, 
social  order  and  the  rights  of  nations  ?  "  Oh  !  but  we  regretted 
the  partition  of  Poland  !  "  Yes,  regretted  !  you  regretted  the 
violence,  and  that  is  all  you  did.  You  united  yourselves  with 
the  actors  ;  you,  in  fact,  by  your  acquiescence,  confirmed  the 
atrocity.  But  they  are  your  allies  ;  and  although  they  over- 
ran and  divided  Poland,  there  was  nothing,  perhaps,  in  the 
manner  of  doing  it,  which  stamped  it  with  peculiar  infamy 
and  disgrace.  The  hero  of  Poland,  perhaps,  was  merciful  and 
mild  !  He  was  as  much  superior  to  Bonaparte  in  bravery, 
and  in  the  discipline  which  he  maintained,  as  he  was  superior 
in  virtue  and  humanity  !  He  was  animated  by  the  purest 
principles  of  Christianity,  and  was  restrained  in  his  career  by 
the  benevolent  precepts  which  it  inculcates  !  Was  he  ? 
Let  unfortunate  Warsaw,  and  the  miserable  inhabitants  of 
the  suburb  of  Praga  in  particular,  tell  !  ^hat  do  we  under- 
stand to  have  been  the  conduct  of  this  magnanimous  hero, 
with  whom,  it  seems,  Bonaparte  is  not  to  be  compared  ?  He 
entered  the  suburb  of  Praga,  the  most  popular  suburb  of 
'VVarsaw ;    and  there  let  his  soldiery  loose  on  the  miserable, 


]FOX  181 

Unarmed  and  unresisting  people  !  Men,  women,  and  children, 
nay,  infants  at  the  breast,  were  doomed  to  one  indiscriminate 
massacre  !  Thousands  of  them  were  inhumanly,  wantonly, 
butchered !  And  for  what  ?  Because  they  had  dared  to  join 
in  a  wish  to  meliorate  their  own  condition  as  a  people,  and  to 
improve  their  constitution,  which  had  been  confessed  by  their 
own  Sovereign  to  be  in  want  of  amendment.  And  such  is  the 
hero  upon  whom  the  cause  of  "  religion  and  social  order  "  is 
to  repose  !  and  such  is  the  man  whom  we  praise  for  his  disci- 
pline and  his  virtue,  and  whom  we  hold  out  as  our  boast  and 
our  dependence,  while  the  conduct  of  Bonaparte  unfits  him 
to  be  even  treated  with  as  an  enemy  ! 

But  the  behaviour  of  the  French  towards  Switzerland  raises 
all  the  indignation  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman  and 
inflames  his  eloquence.  I  admire  the  indignation  which  he 
expresses  (and  I  think  he  felt  it)  in  speaking  of  this  country, 
so  dear  and  so  congenial  to  every  man  who  loves  the  sacred 
name  of  liberty.  He  who  loves  liberty,  says  the  right  honour- 
able gentleman,  thought  himself  at  home  on  the  favoured  and 
happy  mountains  of  Switzerland,  where  she  seemed  to  have 
taken  up  her  abode  under  a  sort  of  implied  compact,  among 
all  other  states,  that  she  should  not  be  disturbed  in  this  her 
chosen  asylum.  I  admire  the  eloquence  of  the  right  honourable 
gentleman  in  speaking  of  this  country  of  liberty  and  peace, 
to  which  every  man  would  desire,  once  in  his  life  at  least,  to 
make  a  pilgrimage.  But  who,  let  me  ask  him,  first  proposed  to 
the  Swiss  people  to  depart  from  the  neutrality  which  was  their 
chief  protection,  and  to  join  the  confederacy  against  the 
French  ?  I  aver,  that  a  noble  relation  of  mine  (Lord  Robert 
Fitzgerald),  then  the  Minister  of  England  to  the  Swiss  Cantons 
was  instructed,  in  direct  terms,  to  propose  to  the  Swiss,  by  an 
official  note,  to  break  from  the  line  they  had  laid  down  for 
themselves,  and  to  tell  them,  *'  in  such  a  contest  neutrality 
was  criminal."  I  know  that  noble  lord  too  well,  though  I 
have  not  been  in  habits  of  intercourse  with  him  of  late,  from 
the  employments  in  which  he  has  been  engaged,  to  suspect  that 
he  would  have  presented  such  a  paper  without  the  express 
instructions  of  his  Court,  or  that  he  would  have  gone  beyond 
those  instructions. 

But,  was  it  only  to  Switzerland  that  this  sort  of  language 
was  held  ?     What  was  our  language  also  to  Tuscany  and  to 


\S1  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

Genoa  ?  An  honourable  gentleman  (Mr.  Canning)  has  denied 
the  authenticity  of  a  pretended  letter  which  has  been  circulated, 
and  ascribed  to  Lord  Harvey.  He  says,  it  is  all  a  fable  and 
a  forgery.  Be  it  so  ;  but  is  it  also  a  fable  that  Lord  Harvey 
did  speak  in  terms  to  the  Grand  Duke,  which  he  considered  as 
offensive  and  insulting  ?  I  cannot  tell  for  I  was  not  present. 
But  was  it  not,  and  is  it  not  believed  ?  Is  it  a  fable  that  Lord 
Harvey  went  into  the  closet  of  the  Grand  Duke,  laid  his  watch 
upon  the  table,  and  demanded  in  a  peremptory  manner,  that 
he  should,  within  a  certain  number  of  minutes,  I  think  I  have 
heard  within  a  quarter  of  an  hour,  determine  aye  or  no,  to 
dismiss  the  French  Minister  and  order  him  out  of  his  dominion  ; 
with  the  menace,  that  if  he  did  not,  the  English  fleet  should 
bombard  Leghorn  ?  Will  the  honourable  gentleman  deny  this 
also  ?  I  certainly  do  not  know  it  from  my  own  knowledge  ; 
but  I  know,  that  persons  of  the  first  credit,  then  at  Florence, 
have  stated  these  facts,  and  that  they  have  never  been  contra- 
dicted. It  is  true  that  upon  the  Grand  Duke's  complaint  of 
this  indignity.  Lord  Harvey  was  recalled  ;  but  was  the  principle 
recalled  ?  Was  the  mission  recalled  ?  Do  not  ministers 
persist  in  the  demand  which  Lord  Harvey  had  made,  perhaps 
ungraciously  ?  Was  not  the  Grand  Duke  forced,  in  conse- 
quence, to  dismiss  the  French  minister  ?  and  did  they  not 
drive  him  to  enter  into  an  unwilling  war  with  the  republic  ? 
It  is  true  that  he  afterwards  made  his  peace  ;  and  that,  having 
done  so,  he  was  treated  severely  and  unjustly  by  the  French. 
But  what  do  I  conclude  from  all  this,  but  that  we  have  no  right 
to  be  scrupulous,  we  who  have  violated  the  respect  due  to 
peaceable  powers  ourselves,  in  this  war,  which,  more  than  any 
other  that  ever  afflicted  human  nature,  has  been  distinguished 
by  the  greatest  number  of  disgusting  and  outrageous  insults  to 
the  smaller  powers  by  the  great.  And  I  infer  from  this  also, 
that  the  instances  not  being  confined  to  the  French,  but  having 
been  perpetrated  by  every  one  of  the  allies,  and  by  England 
as  much  as  by  the  others,  we  have  no  right  to  refuse  to  treat 
with  the  French  on  this  ground.  Need  I  speak  of  your  conduct 
to  Genoa  also  ?  Perhaps  the  note  delivered  by  Mr.  Drake 
was  also  a  forgery.  Perhaps  the  blockade  of  the  port  never 
took  place.  It  is  impossible  to  deny  the  facts,  which  are  so 
glaring  at  the  time.  It  is  a  painful  thing  to  me.  Sir,  to  be 
obliged  to  go  back  to  these  unfortunate  periods  of  the  history 


I^OX  183 

of  this  war,  and  of  the  conduct  of  this  country ;  but  I  am 
forced  to  the  talk  by  the  use  which  has  been  made  of  the 
atrocities  of  the  French  as  an  argument  against  negotiation. 
I  think  I  have  said  enough  to  prove,  that  if  the  French  have 
been  guilty,  we  have  not  been  innocent.  Nothing  but  deter- 
mined incredulity  can  make  us  deaf  and  blind  to  our  own  acts, 
when  we  are  so  ready  to  yield  an  assent  to  all  the  reproaches 
which  are  thrown  out  on  the  enemy  and  upon  which  reproaches 
we  are  gravely  told  to  continue  the  war. 

"  But  the  French,"  it  seems,  "  have  behaved  ill  everywhere. 
They  seized  on  Venice,  which  had  preserved  the  most  exact 
neutrality,  or  rather,"  as  it  is  hinted,  "  had  manifested  symp- 
toms of  friendship  to  them."  I  agree  with  the  right  honourable 
gentleman,  it  was  an  abominable  act.  I  am  not  the  apologist  of, 
much  less  the  advocate  for,  their  iniquities  ;  neither  will  I 
countenance  them  in  their  pretences  for  the  injustice.  I  do 
not  think  that  much  regard  is  to  be  paid  to  the  charges  which 
a  triumphant  soldiery  bring  on  the  conduct  of  a  people  whom 
they  have  overrun.  Pretences  for  outrage  will  never  be  wanting 
to  the  strong,  when  they  wish  to  trample  on  the  weak  ;  but 
when  we  accuse  the  French  of  having  seized  on  Venice,  after 
stipulating  for  its  neutrality  and  guaranteeing  its  independence, 
we  should  also  remember  the  excuse  that  they  made  for  the 
violence  ;  namely,  that  their  troops  had  been  attacked  and 
murdered.  I  say  I  am  always  incredulous  about  such  excuses  ; 
but  I  think  it  fair  to  hear  whatever  can  be  alleged  on  the  other 
side.  We  cannot  take  one  side  of  a  story  only.  Candour 
demands  that  we  should  examine  the  whole  before  we  make 
up  our  minds  on  the  guilt.  I  cannot  think  it  quite  fair  to  state 
the  view  of  the  subject  of  one  party  as  indisputable  fact,  with- 
out even  mentioning  what  the  other  party  has  to  say  for  itself. 
But,  Sir,  is  this  all  ?  Though  the  perfidy  of  the  French  to 
the  Venetians  be  clear  and  palpable,  was  it  worse  in  morals, 
in  principle,  and  in  example,  than  the  conduct  of  Austria  ? 
My  honourable  friend  (Mr.  Whitbread)  properly  asked,  '*  Is 
not  the  receiver  as  bad  as  the  thief  ?  "  If  the  French  seized 
on  the  territory  of  Venice,  did  not  the  Austrians  agree  to 
receive  it  ?  "  But  this,"  it  seems,  **  is  not  the  same  thing." 
It  is  quite  in  the  nature,  and  within  the  rule  of  diplomatic 
morality,  for  Austria  to  receive  the  country  which  was  thus 
seized  upon  unjustly.     "  The  Emperor  took  it  as  a  kind  of 


184  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

compensation  ;  it  was  his  by  barter  ;  he  was  not  answerable 
for  the  guilt  by  which  it  was  obtained  !  *  Whatjlis  this,  Sir, 
but  the  false  and  abominable  reasoning  with  which  we  have 
been  so  often  disgusted  on  the  subject  of  the  slave  trade  ? 
Just  in  the  same  manner  have  I  heard  a  notorious  wholesale 
dealer  in  this  inhuman  traffic  justify  his  abominable  trade. 
**  I  am  not  guilty  of  the  horrible  crime  of  tearing  that  mother 
from  her  infants  ;  that  husband  from  his  wife  ;  of  depopulating 
that  village  ;  of  depriving  that  family  of  their  sons,  the  support 
of  their  aged  parents  !  No  :  thank  Heaven,  I  am  not  guilty 
of  this  horror  ;  I  only  bought  them  in  the  fair  way  of  trade. 
They  were  brought  to  the  market ;  they  had  been  guilty  of 
crimes,  or  they  had  been  made  prisoners  of  war ;  they  were 
accused  of  witchcraft,  of  obi,  or  of  some  other  sorts  of  sorcery  ; 
and  they  were  brought  to  me  for  sale  ;  I  gave  a  valuable 
consideration  for  them  ;  but  God  forbid  that  I  should  taint 
my  soul  with  the  guilt  of  dragging  them  from  their  friends 
and  families  !  "  Such  has  been  the  precious  defence  of  the 
slave  trade  ;  and  such  is  the  argument  set  up  for  Austria,  in 
this  instance  of  Venice.  "1  did  not  commit  the  crime  of 
trampling  on  the  independence  of  Venice.  I  did  not  seize  on 
the  City  ;  I  gave  a  quid  pro  quo.  It  was  a  matter  of  barter 
and  indemnity  ;  I  gave  half  a  million  of  human  beings  to  be 
put  under  the  yoke  of  France  in  another  district,  and  I  had 
these  people  turned  over  to  me  in  return  !  "  This,  Sir,  is  the 
defence  of  Austria  ;  and  under  such  detestable  sophistry  as 
this,  is  the  infernal  traffic  in  human  flesh,  whether  in  white  or 
black,  to  be  continued  and  even  justified  !  At  no  time  has  that 
diabolical  traffic  been  carried  to  a  greater  length  than  during 
the  present  war  ;  and  that  by  England  herself,  as  well  as 
Austria  and  Russia. 

"  But  France,"  it  seems,  *'  has  roused  all  the  nations  of 
Europe  against  her  "  ;  and  the  long  catalogue  has  been  read 
to  you,  to  prove  she  must  have  been  atrocious  to  provoke  them 
all.  Is  it  true.  Sir,  that  she  has  roused  them  all  ?  It  does  not 
say  much  for  the  address  of  his  Majesty's  ministers,  if  this  be 
the  case.  What,  Sir,  have  all  your  negotiations,  all  your 
declamation,  all  your  money,  been  squandered  in  vain  ?  Have 
you  not  succeeded  in  stirring  the  indignation,  and  engaging 
the  assistance  of  a  single  power  ?  But  you  do  yourselves 
injustice.     I  dare  say  that  the  truth  lies  between  you.    Between 


FOX  18S 

their  crimes  and  your  money  the  rage  has  been  excited  ;  and 
full  as  much  is  due  to  your  seductions  as  to  her  atrocities.  My 
honourable  friend  (Mr.  Erskine)  was  correct,  therefore,  in  his 
argument ;  for  you  cannot  take  both  sides  of  the  case  ;  you 
cannot  accuse  them  of  having  provoked  all  Europe,  and  at  the 
same  time  claim  the  merit  of  having  roused  them  to  join  you. 

You  talk  of  your  allies.  Sir,  I  wish  to  know  who  your  aUies 
are  ?  Russia  is  one  of  them,  I  suppose.  Did  France  attack 
Russia  ?  Has  the  magnanimous  Paul  taken  the  field  for  social 
order  and  religion  on  account  of  personal  aggression  ?  The 
Emperor  of  Russia  has  declared  himself  Grand  Master  of 
Malta,  though  his  religion  is  as  opposite  to  that  of  the  knights 
as  ours  is  ;  and  he  is  as  much  considered  a  heretic  by  the  Church 
of  Rome  as  we  are.  The  King  of  Great  Britain  might,  with  as 
much  propriety,  declare  himself  the  head  of  the  order  of  the 
Chartreuse  monks.  Not  content  with  taking  to  himself  the 
commandery  of  this  institution  of  Malta,  Paul  has  even  created 
a  married  man  a  knight,  contrary  to  all  the  most  sacred  rules 
and  regulations  of  the  order.  And  yet  this  ally  of  ours  is 
fighting  for  religion.  So  much  for  his  rehgion  :  Let  us  show 
his  regard  for  social  order  !  How  does  he  show  his  abhorrence 
of  the  principles  of  the  French,  in  their  violation  of  the  rights 
of  other  nations  ?  What  has  been  his  conduct  to  Denmark  ? 
He  says  to  Denmark — "  You  have  seditious  clubs  at  Copen- 
hagen— No  Danish  vessel  shall  enter  the  ports  of  Russia  !  " 
He  holds  a  still  more  despotic  language  to  Hamburg. 
He  threatens  to  lay  an  embargo  on  their  trade ;  and 
he  forces  them  to  surrender  up  men  who  are  claimed  by  the 
French  as  their  citizens — whether  truly  or  not,  I  do  not  enquire. 
He  threatens  them  with  his  own  vengeance  if  they  refuse  and 
subjects  them  to  that  of  the  French  if  they  comply.  And  what 
has  been  his  conduct  to  Spain  ?  He  first  sends  away  the 
Spanish  minister  from  Petersburg,  and  then  complains,  as  a 
great  insult,  that  his  minister  was  dismissed  from  Madrid  ! 
This  is  one  of  our  allies  ;  and  he  declared  that  the  object  for 
which  he  has  taken  up  arms,  is  to  replace  the  ancient  race  of 
the  House  of  Bourbon  on  the  throne  of  France,  and  that  he  does 
this  for  the  cause  of  religion  and  social  order  !  Such  is  the 
respect  for  religion  and  social  order  which  he  himself  displays  ; 
and  such  are  the  examples  of  it  with  which  we  coalesce  ! 

No  man  regrets,  Sir,  more  than  I  do,  the  enormities  that 


iS6  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

France  has  committed ;  but  how  do  they  bear  upon  the 
question  as  it  now  stands  ?  Are  we  for  ever  to  deprive  our- 
selves of  the  benefits  of  peace,  because  France  has  perpetrated 
acts  of  injustice  ?  Sir,  we  cannot  acquit  ourselves  upon  such 
ground.  We  have  negotiated.  With  the  knowledge  of  these 
acts  of  injustice  and  disorder,  we  have  treated  with  them  twice  ; 
yet,  the  right  honourable  gentleman  cannot  enter  into  negotia- 
tions with  them  now  ;  and  it  is  worth  while  to  attend  to  the 
reasons  that  he  gives  for  the  refusing  their  offer.  The  Revolu- 
tion itself  is  no  more  an  objection  now  than  it  was  in  1796, 
when  he  did  negotiate  ;  for  the  government  of  France  at  that 
time  was  surely  as  unstable  as  it  is  now.  The  crimes  of  the 
French,  the  instability  of  their  government,  did  not  then 
prevent  him  ;  and  why  are  they  to  prevent  him  now  ?  He 
negotiated  with  a  government  as  unstable,  and,  baffled  in  that 
negotiation,  he  did  not  scruple  to  open  another  at  Lisle  in 
1797.  We  have  heard  a  very  curious  account  of  these  negotia- 
tions this  day,  and,  as  the  right  honourable  gentleman  has 
emphatically  told  us,  an  **  honest  "  account  of  them.  He  says 
he  has  no  scruple  in  avowing  that  he  apprehended  danger  from 
the  success  of  his  own  efforts  to  procure  a  pacification,  and 
that  he  was  not  displeased  at  its  failure.  He  was  sincere  in 
his  endeavours  to  treat,  but  he  was  not  disappointed  when 
they  failed.  I  wish  to  understand  the  right  honourable  gentle- 
man correctly.  His  declaration  on  the  subject,  then,  I  take 
to  be  this — that  though  sincere  in  his  endeavours  to  procure 
peace  in  1797,  yet  he  apprehended  greater  danger  from  accom- 
plishing his  object  than  from  the  continuance  of  war  ;  and 
that  he  felt  this  apprehension  from  the  comparative  views  of 
the  probable  state  of  peace  and  war  at  that  time.  I  have  no 
hesitation  in  allowing  the  fact,  that  a  state  of  peace,  immediately 
after  a  war  of  such  violence,  must,  in  some  respects,  be  a  state 
of  insecurity,  but  does  this  not  belong,  in  a  certain  degree,  to 
all  wars  ?  And  are  we  never  to  have  peace,  because  that  peace 
may  be  insecure  ?  But  there  was  something,  it  seems,  so  pecu- 
liar in  this  war,  and  in  the  character  and  principles  of  the 
enemy,  that  the  right  honourable  gentleman  thought  a  peace 
in  1797  would  be  comparatively  more  dangerous  than  war. 
Why,  then,  did  he  treat  ?  I  beg  the  attention  of  the  House 
to  this — He  treated,  "  because  the  unequivocal  sense  of  the 
people  of  England  was  declared  to  be  in  favour  of  negotiation." 


FOX  isi 

The  right  honourable  gentleman  confesses  the  truth,  then, 
that  in  1797  the  people  were  for  peace.  I  thought  so  at  the 
time  ;  but  you  all  recollect,  that  when  I  stated  it  in  my  place, 
it  was  denied.  **  True,"  they  said,  "  you  have  procured 
petitions  ;  but  we  have  petitions,  too  ;  we  all  know  in  what 
strange  ways  petitions  may  be  procured,  and  how  little  they 
deserve  to  be  considered  as  the  sense  of  the  people."  This 
was  their  language  at  the  time  ;  but  now  we  find  these  petitions 
did  speak  the  sense  of  the  people,  and  that  it  was  on  this  side 
of  the  House  only,  that  the  sense  of  the  people  was  spoken. 
The  majority  spoke  a  contrary  language.  It  is  acknowledged, 
then,  that  the  unequivocal  sense  of  the  people  of  England  may 
be  spoken  by  the  minority  of  this  House,  and  that  it  is  not 
always  by  the  test  of  numbers  that  an  honest  decision  is  to  be 
ascertained.  This  House  decided  against  what  the  right 
honourable  gentleman  knew  to  be  the  sense  of  the  country  ; 
but  he  himself  acted  upon  that  sense  against  the  vote  of 
Parliament. 

The  negotiation  in  1796  went  off,  as  my  honourable  and 
learned  friend  (Mr.  Erskine)  has  said,  upon  the  question  of 
Belgium  ;  or,  as  the  right  honourable  gentleman  asserts,  upon 
a  question  of  principle.  He  negotiated  to  please  the  people, 
but  it  went  off  "  on  account  of  a  monstrous  principle  advanced 
by  France,  incompatible  with  all  negotiation."  This  is  now 
said.  Did  the  right  honourable  gentleman  say  so  at  the  time  ? 
Did  he  fairly  and  candidly  inform  the  people  of  England,  that 
they  broke  off  the  negotiation  because  the  French  had  urged 
a  basis  that  it  was  totally  impossible  for  England  at  any  time 
to  grant  ?  No  such  thing.  On  the  contrary,  when  the  nego- 
tiation broke  off,  they  published  a  manifesto,  "  renewing,  in 
the  face  of  Europe,  the  solemn  declaration,  that  whenever 
the  enemy  should  be  disposed  to  enter  on  the  work  of  a  general 
pacification,  in  a  spirit  of  conciliation  and  equity,  nothing 
should  be  wanting  on  their  part  to  contribute  to  the  accom- 
plishment of  that  great  object,"  and  accordingly,  in  1797, 
notwithstanding  this  incompatible  principle,  and  with  all  the 
enormities  of  the  French  on  their  heads,  they  opened  a  new 
negotiation  at  Lisle.  They  do  not  wait  for  any  retraction  of 
this  incompatible  principle  ;  they  do  not  wait  even  till  over- 
tures shall  be  made  to  them  ;  but  they  solicit  and  renew  a 
negotiation  themselves.     I  do  not  blame  them  for  this,  Sir, 


188  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

I  say  only  that  it  is  an  argument  against  the  assertion  of  an 
incompatible  principle.  It  is  a  proof,  that  they  did  not  then 
think  as  the  right  honourable  gentleman  now  says  they  thought ; 
but  that  they  yielded  to  the  sentiments  of  the  nation,  who 
were  generally  inclined  to  peace,  against  their  own  judgment ; 
and,  from  a  motive  which  I  shall  come  to  by  and  by,  they  had 
no  hesitation,  on  account  of  the  first  rupture,  to  renew  the 
negotiation — it  was  renewed  at  Lisle  ;  and  this  the  French 
broke  off,  after  the  revolution  at  Paris  on  the  4th  of  Septem- 
ber. What  was  the  conduct  of  ministers  on  this  occasion  ? 
One  would  have  thought  that,  with  the  fresh  insult  at  Lisle 
in  their  minds,  with  the  recollection  of  their  failure  the  year 
before  at  Paris,  if  it  had  been  true  that  they  found  an  incom- 
patible principle,  they  would  have  talked  a  warlike  language, 
and  would  have  announced  to  their  country  and  to  all  Europe, 
that  peace  was  not  to  be  obtained  ;  that  they  must  throw 
away  the  scabbard,  and  think  only  of  the  means  of  continuing 
the  contest.  No  such  thing.  They  put  forth  a  declaration 
in  which  they  said,  that  they  should  look  with  anxious  expec- 
tation for  the  moment  when  the  government  of  France  should 
show  a  disposition  and  spirit  corresponding  with  their  own  ; 
and  renewing  before  all  Europe  the  solemn  declaration, 
that  at  the  very  moment  when  the  brilliant  victory  of  Lord 
Duncan  might  have  justified  them  in  demanding  more  extrava- 
gant terms,  they  were  willing,  if  the  calamities  of  war  could 
be  closed,  to  conclude  peace  on  the  same  moderate  and  equitable 
principles  and  terms  which  they  had  before  proposed.  Such 
was  their  declaration  upon  that  occasion  ;  and  in  the  dis- 
cussions which  we  had  upon  it  in  this  House,  ministers  were 
explicit.  They  said,  that  by  that  negotiation,  there  had  been 
given  to  the  world  what  might  be  regarded  as  an  unequivocal 
test  of  the  sincerity  and  disposition  of  government  towards 
peace,  or  against  it ;  for  those  who  refuse  discussion  show 
that  they  are  disinclined  to  pacification  ;  and  it  is  therefore, 
they  said,  always  to  be  considered  as  a  test,  that  the  party 
who  refuses  to  negotiate,  is  the  party  who  is  disinclined  to 
peace.  This  they  themselves  set  up  as  the  test.  Try  them 
now,  Sir,  by  that  test.  An  offer  is  made  them.  They  rashly, 
and  I  think  rudely,  refuse  it.  Have  they  or  have  they  not, 
broken  their  own  test  ?  But,  they  say,  "  We  have  not  refused 
all  discussion."     They  have  put  a  case.     They  have  expressed  a 


FOX  189 

wish  for  the  restoration  of  the  House  of  Bourbon,  and  have 
declared  that  to  be  an  event  which  would  immediately  remove 
every  obstacle  to  negotiation.  Sir,  as  to  the  restoration  of  the 
House  of  Bourbon,  if  it  shall  be  the  wish  of  the  people  of 
France,  I  for  one  shall  be  perfectly  content  to  acquiese.  I 
think  the  people  of  France,  as  well  as  every  other  people, 
ought  to  have  the  government  they  like  best  themselves  ; 
and  the  form  of  that  government,  or  the  persons  who  hold  it  in 
their  hands,  should  never  be  an  obstacle  with  me  to  treat  with 
the  nation  for  peace,  or  to  live  with  them  in  amity ;  but  as  an 
Englishman,  and  actuated  by  English  feelings,  I  surely  cannot 
wish  for  the  restoration  of  the  House  of  Bourbon  to  the  throne 
of  France.  I  hope  I  am  not  the  man  to  bear  heavily  upon 
any  unfortunate  family.  I  feel  for  their  situation — I  respect 
their  distresses — but  as  a  friend  of  England,  I  cannot  wish  for 
their  restoration  to  the  power  which  they  abused.  I  cannot 
forget  that  the  whole  history  of  the  century  is  httle  more  than 
an  account  of  the  wars  and  the  calamities  arising  from  the 
restless  ambition,  the  intrigues,  and  the  perfidy  of  the  House 
of  Bourbon. 

I  cannot  discover,  in  any  part  of  the  laboured  defence  which 
has  been  set  up  for  not  accepting  the  offer  now  made  by  France, 
any  argument  to  satisfy  my  mind  that  ministers  have  not 
forfeited  the  test  which  they  held  out  as  infallible  in  1797. 
An  honourable  gentleman  (Mr.  Canning)  thinks,  that  Parliament 
should  be  eager  only  to  approach  the  throne  with  declarations 
of  their  readiness  to  support  his  Majesty  in  the  farther  prosecu- 
tion of  the  w^ar  without  inquiry ;  and  he  is  quite  delighted  with 
an  address,  which  he  has  found  upon  the  journals,  to  King 
William,  in  which  they  pledged  themselves  to  support  him 
in  his  efforts  to  resist  the  ambition  of  Louis  XIV.  He  thinks 
it  quite  astonishing  how  much  it  is  in  point,  and  how  perfectly 
it  applies  to  the  present  occasion.  One  would  have  thought, 
Sir,  that  in  order  to  prove  the  application,  he  would  have 
shown  that  an  offer  had  been  respectfully  made  by  the  Grand 
Monarque  to  King  William,  to  treat,  which  he  had  peremp- 
torily, and  in  very  irritating  terms,  refused  ;  and  that  upon 
this,  the  House  of  Commons  had  come  forward,  and,  with  one 
voice,  declared  their  determination  to  stand  by  him,  with  their 
lives  and  fortunes,  in  prosecuting  the  just  and  necessary  war. 
Not  a  word  of  all  this  ;    and  yet  the  honourable  gentleman 


190  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

finds  it  quite  a  parallel  case,  and  an  exact  model  for  the  House, 
on  this  day,  to  pursue.  I  really  think,  Sir,  he  might  as  well 
have  taken  any  other  address  upon  the  journals,  upon  any 
other  topic,  as  this  address  to  King  William.  It  would  have 
been  equally  in  point,  and  would  have  equally  served  to  show 
the  honourable  gentleman's  talents  of  reasoning. 

Sir,  I  cannot  here  overlook  another  instance  of  this  honour- 
able gentleman's  candid  style  of  debating,  and  of  his  respect 
for  Parliament.  He  has  found  out,  it  seems,  that  in  former 
periods  of  our  history,  and  even  in  periods  which  have  been 
denominated  good  times,  intercepted  letters  have  been  pub- 
lished ;  and  he  reads,  from  the  Gazette,  instances  of  such 
publication.  Really,  Sir,  if  the  honourable  gentleman  had 
pursued  the  profession  to  which  he  turned  his  thoughts  when 
younger,  he  would  have  learned  that  it  was  necessary  to  find 
cases  a  little  more  in  point.  And  yet  full  of  his  triumph  on  this 
notable  discovery,  he  has  chosen  to  indulge  himself  in  speaking 
of  a  most  respectable  and  a  most  honourable  person  as  any 
that  this  country  knows,  and  who  is  possessed  of  as  sound  an 
understanding  as  any  man  that  I  have  the  good  fortune  to  be 
acquainted  with,  in  terms  the  most  offensive  and  disgusting, 
on  account  of  words  which  he  may  be  supposed  to  have  said 
in  another  place  [alluding  to  the  Duke  of  Bedford's  speech 
in  the  House  of  Lords].  He  has  spoken  of  that  noble  person 
and  his  intellect,  in  terms  which,  were  I  disposed  to  retort, 
I  might  say,  show  the  honourable  gentleman  to  be  possessed 
of  an  intellect  which  would  justify  me  in  passing  over  in  silence 
anything  that  comes  from  such  a  man.  Sir,  that  noble  person 
did  not  speak  of  the  mere  act  of  publishing  the  intercepted 
correspondence  ;  and  the  honourable  gentleman's  reference 
to  the  Gazettes  of  former  periods  is,  therefore,  not  to  the  point. 
The  noble  duke  complained  of  the  manner  in  which  these 
intercepted  letters  had  been  published,  not  of  the  fact  itself 
of  their  publication  ;  for,  in  the  introduction  and  notes  to 
those  letters,  the  ribaldry  is  such,  that  they  are  not  screened 
from  the  execration  of  every  honourable  mind  even  by  their 
extreme  stupidity.  The  honourable  gentleman  says,  that 
he  must  treat  with  indifference  the  intellect  of  a  man  who  can 
ascribe  the  present  scarcity  of  corn  to  the  war.  Sir,  I  think 
there  is  nothing  either  absurd  or  unjust  in  such  an  opinion. 
Does  not  the  war,  necessarily,  by  its  magazines,  and  still  more 


FOX  191 

by  its  expeditions,  increase  consumption  ?  But  when  we  leam 
that  com  is,  at  this  very  moment,  sold  in  France  for  less  than 
half  the  price  which  it  bears  here,  is  it  not  a  fair  thing  to  sup- 
pose that,  but  for  the  war  and  its  prohibitions,  a  part  of  that 
grain  would  be  brought  to  this  country,  on  account  of  the  high 
price  which  it  would  sell  for,  and  that  consequently,  our 
scarcity  would  be  relieved  from  their  abundance  ?  I  speak 
only  upon  report,  of  course  ;  but  I  see  that  the  price  quoted 
in  the  French  markets  is  less,  by  one  half,  than  the  prices  in 
England.  There  was  nothing,  therefore,  very  absurd  in 
what  fell  from  my  noble  friend  ;  and  I  would  really  advise 
the  honourable  gentleman,  when  he  speaks  of  persons  dis- 
tinguished for  every  virtue,  to  be  a  little  more  guarded  in  his 
language.  I  see  no  reason  why  he  and  his  friends  should  not 
leave  to  persons  in  another  place,  holding  the  same  opinions 
as  themselves,  the  task  of  answering  what  may  be  thrown 
out  there.  Is  not  the  phalanx  sufficient  ?  It  is  no  great 
compliment  to  their  talents,  considering  their  number,  that  they 
cannot  be  left  to  the  task  of  answering  the  few  to  whom  they 
are  opposed  ;  but,  perhaps,  the  honourable  gentleman  has  too 
little  to  do  in  this  House,  and  is  to  be  sent  there  himself.  In 
truth  I  see  no  reason  why  even  he  might  not  be  sent,  as  well  as 
some  others  who  have  been  sent  there. 

To  return  to  the  subject  of  the  negotiation  in  1797.  It  is, 
in  my  mind,  extremely  material  to  attend  to  the  account 
which  the  right  honourable  gentleman  gives  of  his  memorable 
negotiation  of  1797,  and  of  his  motives  for  entering  into  it. 
In  all  questions  of  peace  and  war,  he  says,  many  circumstances 
must  necessarily  enter  into  the  consideration  ;  and  that  they 
are  not  to  be  decided  on  the  extremes  ;  the  determination 
must  be  made  upon  a  balance  and  comparison  of  the  evils  or 
the  advantages  upon  the  one  side  and  the  other,  and  that  one 
of  the  greatest  considerations  is  that  of  finance.  In  1797, 
the  right  honourable  gentleman  confesses  he  found  himself 
peculiarly  embarrassed  as  to  the  resources  for  the  war,  if  they 
were  to  be  found  in  the  old  and  usual  way  of  the  funding  system. 
Now  though  he  thought,  upon  his  balance  and  comparison 
of  considerations,  that  the  evils  of  war  would  be  fewer  than 
those  of  peace,  yet  they  would  only  be  so  provided  that  he 
could  establish  a  "  new  and  solid  system  of  finance  "  in  the  place 
of  the  old  and  exhausted  funding  system  ;  and  to  accomphsh 


192  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

this,  it  was  necessary  to  have  the  unanimous  approbation 
of  the  people.  To  procure  this  unanimity,  he  pretended  to 
be  a  friend  to  negotiation,  though  he  did  not  wish  for  the 
success  of  that  negotiation,  but  hoped,  only,  that  through  that 
means  he  should  bring  the  people  to  agree  to  his  new  and  solid 
system  of  finance.  With  these  views,  then,  what  does  he  do  ? 
Knowing  that,  contrary  to  his  declarations  in  this  House, 
the  opinion  of  the  people  of  England  was  generally  for  peace, 
he  enters  into  a  negotiation,  in  which,  as  the  world  believed 
at  the  time,  and  even  until  this  day  he  completely  failed — No 
such  thing.  Sir, — he  completely  succeeded — for  his  object 
was  not  to  gain  peace ;  it  was  to  gain  over  the  people  of  this 
country  to  a  "  new  and  a  solid  system  of  finance  " — that  is, 
to  the  raising  a  great  part  of  the  supplies  within  the  year,  to 
the  triple  assessment,  and  to  the  tax  upon  income.  And  how 
did  he  gain  them  over  ?  By  pretending  to  be  a  friend  of  peace, 
which  he  was  not ;  and  by  opening  a  negotiation  which  he 
secretly  wished  might  not  succeed.  The  right  honourable 
gentleman  says,  that  in  all  this  he  was  honest  and  sincere  ; 
he  negotiated  fairly,  and  would  have  obtained  the  peace,  if 
the  French  had  shown  a  disposition  correspondent  to  his  own  ; 
but  he  rejoiced  that  their  conduct  was  such  as  to  convince 
the  people  of  England  of  the  necessity  of  concurring  with  him 
in  the  views  which  he  had,  and  in  granting  him  the  supplies 
which  he  thought  essential  to  their  posture  at  the  time.  Sir, 
I  will  not  say,  that  in  all  this  he  was  not  honest  to  his  own 
purpose,  and  that  he  has  not  been  honest  in  his  declarations 
and  confessions  this  night ;  but  I  cannot  agree  that  he  was 
honest  to  this  House,  or  honest  to  the  people  of  this  country. 
To  this  House  it  was  not  honest  to  make  them  counteract  the 
sense  of  the  people,  as  he  knew  it  to  be  expressed  in  the  petitions 
upon  the  table  ;  nor  was  it  honest  to  the  country  to  act  in  a 
disguise,  and  to  pursue  a  secret  purpose,  unknown  to  them, 
while  affecting  to  take  the  road  which  they  pointed  out.  I 
know  not  whether  this  may  not  be  honesty  in  the  political 
ethics  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman,  but  I  know  that  it 
would  be  called  by  a  very  different  name  in  the  common 
transactions  of  society,  and  in  the  rules  of  morality  established 
in  private  life.  I  know  of  nothing,  in  the  history  of  this  country 
that  it  resembles,  except,  perhaps,  one  of  the  most  profligate 
periods — the  reign  of  Charles  H,  when  the  sale  of  Dunkirk 


FOX  193 

might  probably  have  been  justified  by  the  same  pretence. 
Charles  also  declared  war  against  France,  and  did  it  to 
cover  a  negotiation  by  which,  in  his  difficulties,  he  was  to 
gain  a  *'  solid  system  of  finance." 

But,  Sir,  I  meet  the  right  honourable  gentleman  on  his  own 
ground.  I  say  that  you  ought  to  treat  on  the  same  principle 
as  you  treated  in  1797,  in  order  to  gain  the  cordial  co-operation 
of  the  people.  "  We  want  experience,  and  the  evidence  of 
facts."  Can  there  be  any  evidence  of  facts  equal  to  that  of  a 
frank,  open,  and  candid  negotiation  ?  Let  us  see  whether 
Bonaparte  will  display  the  same  temper  as  his  predecessors. 
If  he  shall  do  so,  then  you  will  confirm  the  people  of  England 
in  their  opinion  of  the  necessity  of  continuing  the  war,  and 
you  will  revive  all  the  vigour  which  you  roused  in  1797.  Or 
will  you  not  do  this  until  you  have  a  reverse  of  fortune  ?  Will 
you  never  treat,  but  when  you  are  in  a  situation  of  distress, 
and  when  you  have  occasion  to  impose  on  the  people  ? 

'*  But,"  you  say,  **  we  have  not  refused  to  treat."  You 
have  stated  a  case  in  which  you  will  be  ready  immediately  to 
enter  into  a  negotiation,  viz.,  the  restoration  of  the  House  of 
Bourbon  ;  but  you  deny  that  this  is  a  sine  qua  non ;  and  in 
your  nonsensical  language,  which  I  do  not  understand,  you 
talk  of  '*  limited  possibihties  "  which  may  induce  you  to  treat 
without  the  restoration  of  the  House  of  Bourbon.  But  do  you 
state  what  they  are  ?  Now,  Sir,  I  say,  that  if  you  put  one  case 
upon  which  you  declare  that  you  are  willing  to  treat  inune- 
diately,  and  say  that  there  are  other  possible  cases  which  may 
induce  you  to  treat  hereafter,  without  mentioning  what  these 
possible  cases  are,  you  do  state  a  sine  qua  non  of  immediate 
treaty.  Suppose  I  have  an  estate  to  sell,  and  I  say  my  demand 
is  £1,000  for  it.  I  will  sell  the  estate  immediately  for  that  sum. 
To  be  sure,  there  may  be  other  terms  upon  which  I  may  be 
willing  to  part  with  it ;  but  I  say  nothing  of  them.  The  £1,000 
is  the  only  condition  that  I  state  now.  Will  any  gentleman 
say,  that  I  do  not  make  the  £1,000  the  sine  qua  non  of  the 
immediate  sale  ?  Thus  you  say,  the  restoration  of  the  princes 
is  not  the  only  possible  ground  ;  but  you  give  no  other.  This 
is  your  projet.  Do  you  demand  a  contre  projet  ?  Do  you 
follow  your  own  rule  ?  Do  you  not  do  the  thing  of  which  you 
complained  in  the  enemy  ?  You  seemed  to  be  afraid  of 
receiving  another  proposition  ;    and  by  confining  yourselves 

13— (2170) 


194  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

to  this  one  point,  you  make  it  in  fact,  though  not  in  terms, 
your  sine  qim  non. 

But  the  right  honourable  gentleman,  in  his  speech,  does 
what  the  official  note  avoids — He  finds  there  the  convenient 
words,  **  experience  and  the  evidence  of  facts  "  ;  — upon  these 
he  goes  into  detail ;  and,  in  order  to  convince  the  House  that 
new  evidence  is  required,  he  goes  back  to  all  the  earliest  acts 
and  crimes  of  the  Revolution — to  all  the  atrocities  of  all  the 
governments  that  have  passed  away,  and  he  contends  that  he 
must  have  experience  that  these  foul  crimes  are  repented  of, 
and  that  a  purer  and  a  better  system  is  adopted  in  France, 
by  which  he  may  be  sure  that  they  shall  be  capable  of  main- 
taining the  relations  of  peace  and  amity.  Sir,  these  are  not 
conciliatory  words  ;  nor  is  this  a  practicable  ground  to  gain 
experience.  Does  he  think  it  possible,  that  evidence  of  a 
peaceable  demeanour  can  be  obtained  in  war  ?  What  does  he 
mean  to  say  to  the  French  Consul  ?  **  Until  you  shall  in  war 
behave  yourself  in  a  peaceable  manner,  I  will  not  treat  with 
you."  Is  there  not  something  extremely  ridiculous  in  this  ? 
In  duels,  indeed,  we  have  often  heard  of  this  kind  of  language. 
Two  gentlemen  go  out,  and  fight ;  when,  after  discharging 
thpir  pistols  at  one  another,  it  is  not  an  unusual  thing  for  one 
of  them  to  say  to  the  other — "  Now  I  am  satisfied — I  see  that 
you  are  a  man  of  honour,  and  we  are  friends  again."  There 
is  something,  by  the  bye,  ridiculous  even  in  this ;  but  between 
nations,  it  is  more  than  ridiculous — it  is  criminal.  It  is  a 
ground  which  no  principle  can  justify,  and  which  is  as  imprac- 
ticable as  it  is  impious.  That  two  nations  should  be  set  on  to 
beat  one  another  into  friendship,  is  too  abominable  even  for 
the  fiction  of  romance  ;  but  for  a  statesman,  seriously  and 
gravely  to  lay  it  down  as  a  system  on  which  he  means  to  act, 
is  monstrous.  What  can  we  say  of  such  a  test  as  he  means 
to  put  the  French  government  to,  but  that  it  is  hopeless  ? 
It  is  the  nature  of  war  to  inflame  animosity — to  exasperate, 
not  to  soothe — to  widen,  not  to  approximate.  And  so  long 
as  this  is  to  be  acted  upon,  it  is  vain  to  hope  that  we  can  have 
the  evidence  which  we  require. 

The  right  honourable  gentleman,  however,  thinks  otherwise  ; 
and  he  points  out  four  distinct  possible  cases,  besides  the 
re-establishment  of  the  Bourbon  family,  in  which  he  would 
agree  to  treat  with  the  French. 


FOX  195 

I.  "If  Bonaparte  shall  conduct  himself  so  as  to  convince 
him  that  he  has  abandoned  the  principles  which  were  objec- 
tionable in  his  predecessors,  and  that  he  shall  be  actuated  by 
a  more  moderate  system."  I  ask  you,  Sir,  if  this  is  likely  to 
be  ascertained  in  war  ?  It  is  the  nature  of  war  not  to  allay 
but  to  inflame  the  passions  ;  and  it  is  not  by  the  invective  and 
abuse  which  have  been  thrown  upon  him  and  his  government, 
nor  by  the  continued  irritations  which  war  is  sure  to  give, 
that  the  virtues  of  moderation  and  forbearance  are  to  be 
nourished. 

II.  "  If,  contrary  to  the  expectations  of  ministers,  the 
people  of  France  shall  show  a  disposition  to  acquiesce  in  the 
government  of  Bonaparte."  Does  the  right  honourable  gentle- 
man mean  to  say,  that  because  it  is  an  usurpation  on  the  part 
of  the  present  chief,  therefore  the  people  are  not  likely  to 
acquiesce  in  it  ?  I  have  not  time.  Sir,  to  discuss  the  question 
of  this  usurpation,  or  whether  it  is  likely  to  be  permanent ; 
but  I  certainly  have  not  so  good  an  opinion  of  the  French,  or 
of  any  people,  as  to  believe  that  it  will  be  short-lived,  merely 
because  it  was  an  usurpation,  and  because  it  is  a  system  ot 
military  despotism.  Cromwell  was  a  usurper ;  and  in  many 
points  there  may  be  found  a  resemblance  between  him  and  the 
present  Chief  Consul  of  France.  There  is  no  doubt  but  that, 
on  several  occasions  of  his  life,  Cromwell's  sincerity  may  be 
questioned,  particularly  in  his  self-denying  ordinance — in  his 
affected  piety,  and  other  things  ;  but  would  it  not  have  been 
insanity  in  France  and  Spain  to  refuse  to  treat  with  him, 
because  he  was  a  usurper  ?  No,  Sir,  these  are  not  the  maxims 
by  which  governments  are  actuated.  They  do  not  inquire 
so  much  into  the  means  by  which  power  may  have  been 
acquired,  as  into  the  fact  of  where  the  power  resides.  The 
people  did  acquiesce  in  the  government  of  Cromwell ;  but  it 
may  be  said,  that  the  splendour  of  his  talents,  the  vigour  of 
his  administration,  the  high  tone  with  which  he  spoke  to  foreign 
nations,  the  success  of  his  arms,  and  the  character  which  he 
gave  to  the  English  name,  induced  the  nation  to  acquiesce  in 
his  usurpation ;  and  that  we  must  not  try  Bonaparte  by  this 
example.  Will  it  be  said  that  Bonaparte  is  not  a  man  of  great 
abilities  ?  Will  it  be  said  that  he  has  not,  by  his  victories, 
thrown  a  splendour  over  even  the  violence  of  the  Revolution, 
and  that  he  does  not  conciliate  the  French  people  by  the  high 


196  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

and  lofty  tone  in  which  he  speaks  to  foreign  nations  ?  Are  not 
the  French,  then,  as  hkely  as  the  Enghsh  in  the  case  of  Crom- 
well, to  acquiesce  in  his  goveniment  ?  If  they  should  do  so, 
the  right  honourable  gentleman  may  find  that  this  possible 
predicament  may  fail  him.  He  may  find  that  though  one 
power  may  make  war,  it  requires  two  to  make  peace.  He  may 
find  that  Bonaparte  was  as  insincere  as  himself,  in  the  proposi- 
tion which  he  made  ;  and  in  his  turn  he  may  come  forward  and 
say — "  I  have  no  occasion  now  for  concealment.  It  is  true, 
that  in  the  beginning  of  the  year  1800,  I  offered  to  treat,  not 
because  I  wished  for  peace,  but  because  the  people  of  France 
wished  for  it ;  and  besides,  my  old  resources  being  exhausted, 
and  there  being  no  means  of  carrying  on  the  war  without  a 
*  new  and  solid  system  of  finance,'  I  pretended  to  treat,  because 
I  wished  to  procure  the  unanimous  assent  of  the  French 
people  to  this  '  new  and  solid  system.'  Did  you  think  I  was  in 
earnest  ?  You  were  deceived.  I  now  throw  off  the  mask  ; 
I  have  gained  my  point ;  and  I  reject  your  offers  with  scorn." 
Is  it  not  a  very  possible  case  that  he  may  use  this  language  ? 
Is  it  not  within  the  right  honourable  gentleman's  "  knowledge 
of  human  nature  "  ?  But  even  if  this  should  not  be  the  case, 
will  not  the  very  test  which  you  require — the  acquiescence  of  the 
people  of  France  in  his  government — give  him  an  advantage- 
ground  in  the  negotiation  which  he  does  not  possess  now  ? 
Is  it  quite  sure,  that  when  he  finds  himself  safe  in  his  seat,  he 
will  treat  on  the  same  terms  as  now,  and  that  you  will  get  a 
better  peace  some  time  hence,  than  you  might  reasonably 
hope  to  obtain  at  this  moment  ?  Will  he  not  have  one  interest 
less  than  at  present  ?  And  do  you  not  overlook  a  favourable 
occasion,  for  a  chance  which  is  extremely  doubtful  ?  These 
are  the  considerations  which  I  would  urge  to  his  Majesty's 
ministers,  against  the  dangerous  experiment  of  waiting  for 
the  acquiescence  of  the  people  of  France. 
■A  III.  "  If  the  allies  of  this  country  shall  be  less  successful 
than  they  have  every  reason  to  expect  they  will  be,  in  stirring 
up  the  people  of  France  against  Bonaparte,  and  in  the  further 
prosecution  of  the  war  "  ;    and, 

IV.  **  If  the  pressure  of  the  war  should  be  heavier  upon  us, 
than  it  would  be  convenient  for  us  to  continue  to  bear." 
These  are  the  two  possible  emergencies  in  which  the  right 
honourable  gentlemen  would  treat  even  with  Bonaparte.     Sir, 


FOX  197 

I  have  often  blamed  the  right  honourable  gentleman  for  being 
disingenuous  and  insincere.  On  the  present  occasion  I  certainly 
cannot  charge  him  with  any  such  thing.  He  has  made  to-night 
a  most  honest  confession.  He  is  open  and  candid.  He  tells 
Bonaparte  fairly  what  he  has  to  expect.  "  I  mean,"  says  he, 
"to  do  everything  in  my  power  to  raise  up  the  people  of 
France  against  you.  I  have  engaged  a  number  of  allies,  and 
our  combined  efforts  shall  be  used  to  excite  insurrection  and 
civil  war  in  France.  I  will  strive  to  murder  you,  or  to  get  you 
sent  away.  If  I  succeed,  well ;  but  if  I  fail,  then  I  will  treat 
with  you.  My  resources  being  exhausted  ;  even  my  solid 
system  of  finance  having  failed  to  supply  me  with  the  means 
of  keeping  together  my  alhes,  and  of  feeding  the  discontents 
I  have  excited  in  France,  then  you  may  expect  to  see  me 
renounce  my  high  tone,  my  attachment  to  the  House  of  Bour- 
bon, my  abhorrence  of  your  crimes,  my  alarm  at  your  principles ; 
for  then  I  shall  be  ready  to  own,  that,  on  the  balance  and 
comparison  of  circumstances,  there  will  be  less  danger  in  con- 
cluding a  peace,  than  in  the  continuance  of  war  !  "  Is  this 
a  language  for  one  state  to  hold  to  another  ?  And  what  sort 
of  peace  does  the  right  honourable  gentleman  expect  to  receive 
in  that  case  ?  Does  he  think  that  Bonaparte  would  grant 
to  baffled  insolence,  to  humiliated  pride,  to  disappointment  and 
to  imbecility,  the  same  terms  which  he  would  be  wiUing  to 
give  now  ?  The  right  honourable  gentleman  cannot  have 
forgotten  what  he  said  on  another  occasion. 

"  Potuit  qiice  plurima  virtus 
Esstf  fuit  ;   toto  certatum  est  corpore  regni." 

He  would  then  have  to  repeat  his  words,  but  with  a  different 
application.  He  would  have  to  say — all  our  efforts  are  vain — 
we  have  exhausted  our  strength — our  designs  are  impracticable 
— and  we  must  sue  to  you  for  peace. 

Sir,  what  is  the  question  this  night  ?  We  are  called  upon  to 
support  ministers  in  refusing  a  frank,  candid,  and  respectful 
offer  of  negotiation,  and  to  countenance  them  in  continuing  the 
war.  Now  I  would  put  the  question  in  another  way.  Sup- 
pose ministers  had  been  inclined  to  adopt  the  line  of  conduct 
which  they  pursued  in  1796  and  1797,  and  that  to-night, 
instead  of  a  question  on  a  war-address,  it  had  been  an  address 
to  his  Majesty,  to  thank  him  for  accepting  the  overture,  and 


198  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

for  opening  a  negotiation  to  treat  for  peace  ;  I  ask  the  gentle- 
men opposite — I  appeal  to  the  whole  558  representatives  of 
the  people — to  lay  their  hands  upon  their  hearts,  and  to  say 
whether  they  would  not  have  cordially  voted  for  such  an 
address  ?  Would  they,  or  would  they  not  ?  Yes,  Sir,  if  the 
address  had  breathed  a  spirit  of  peace,  your  benches  would 
have  resounded  with  rejoicings,  and  with  praises  of  a  measure 
that  was  likely  to  bring  back  the  blessings  of  tranquillity.  On 
the  present  occasion,  then,  I  ask  for  the  vote  of  none,  but  of 
those  who,  in  the  secret  confession  of  their  conscience,  admit, 
at  this  instant,  while  they  hear  me,  that  they  would  have 
cheerfully  and  heartily  voted  with  the  minister  for  an  address 
directly  the  reverse  of  this.  If  every  such  gentleman  were  to 
vote  with  me,  I  should  be  this  night  in  the  greatest  majority 
that  ever  I  had  the  honour  to  vote  with  in  this  House. 

Sir,  we  have  heard  to-night  a  great  many  most  acrimonious 
invectives  against  Bonaparte,  against  the  whole  course  of  his 
conduct,  and  against  the  unprincipled  manner  in  which  he 
seized  upon  the  reins  of  government.  I  will  not  make  his 
defence.  I  think  all  this  sort  of  invective,  which  is  used  only 
to  inflame  the  passions  of  this  House  and  of  the  country, 
exceedingly  ill-timed,  and  very  impolitic — but  I  say  I  will  not 
make  his  defence.  I  am  not  sufficiently  in  possession  of 
materials  upon  which  to  form  an  opinion  on  the  character  and 
conduct  of  this  extraordinary  man.  Upon  his  arrival  in  France, 
he  found  the  government  in  a  very  unsettled  state,  and  the 
whole  affairs  of  the  republic  deranged,  crippled  and  involved. 
He  thought  it  necessary  to  reform  the  government,  and  he 
did  reform  it,  just  in  the  way  in  which  a  military  man  may 
be  expected  to  carry  on  a  reform — he  seized  on  the  whole 
authority  to  himself.  It  will  not  be  expected  from  me,  that  I 
should  either  approve  or  apologise  for  such  an  act.  I  am 
certainly  not  for  reforming  governments  by  such  expedients  ; 
but  how  this  House  can  be  so  violently  indignant  at  the  idea 
of  military  despotism,  is,  I  own,  a  little  singular,  when  I  see 
the  composure  with  which  they  can  observe  it  nearer  home  ; 
nay,  when  I  see  them  regard  it  as  a  frame  of  government  most 
peculiarly  suited  to  the  exercise  of  free  opinion,  on  a  subject 
the  most  important  of  any  that  can  engage  the  attention  of 
people.  Was  it  not  the  system  that  was  so  happily  and  so 
advantageously  established,   of  late,   all  over  Ireland ;    and 


FOX  199 

which,  even  now,  the  government  may  at  its  pleasure,  proclaim 
over  the  whole  of  that  Kingdom  ?  Are  not  the  persons  and 
property  of  the  people  left,  in  many  districts,  at  this  moment, 
to  the  entire  will  of  military  commanders  ?  And  is  not  this 
held  out  as  peculiarly  proper  and  advantageous,  at  a  time  when 
the  people  of  Ireland  are  freely,  and  with  unbiassed  judgments, 
to  discuss  the  most  interesting  question  of  a  legislative  union  ? 
Notwithstanding  the  existence  of  martial  law,  so  far  do  we 
think  Ireland  from  being  enslaved,  and  we  think  it  precisely 
the  period  and  the  circumstances  under  which  she  may  best 
declare  her  free  opinion  !  Now,  really.  Sir,  I  cannot  think 
that  gentlemen  who  talk  in  this  way  about  Ireland  can,  with 
a  good  grace,  rail  at  military  despotism  in  France. 

But,  it  seems,  **  Bonaparte  has  broken  his  oaths.  He  has 
violated  his  oath  of  fidelity  to  the  constitution  of  the  year  3." 
Sir,  I  am  not  one  of  those  who  think  that  any  such  oaths  ought 
ever  to  be  exacted.  They  are  seldom  or  ever  of  any  effect ; 
and  I  am  not  for  sporting  with  a  thing  so  sacred  as  an  oath. 
I  think  it  would  be  good  to  lay  aside  all  such  oaths.  Who 
ever  heard  that,  in  revolutions,  the  oath  of  fidelity  to  the 
former  government  was  ever  regarded  ;  or  even  when  violated, 
that  it  was  imputed  to  the  persons  as  a  crime  ?  In  times  of 
revolution,  men  who  take  up  arms  are  called  rebels.  If  they 
fail,  they  are  adjudged  to  be  traitors.  But  who  ever  heard 
before  of  their  being  perjured  ?  On  the  restoration  of 
Charles  II,  those  who  had  taken  up  arms  for  the  Common- 
wealth were  stigmatized  as  rebels  and  traitors,  but  not  as  men 
foresworn.  Was  the  Earl  of  Devonshire  charged  with  being 
perjured,  on  account  of  the  allegiance  he  had  sworn  to  the 
House  of  Stuart,  and  the  part  he  took  in  those  struggles  which 
preceded  and  brought  about  the  Revolution  ?  The  violation 
of  oaths  of  allegiance  was  never  imputed  to  the  people  of 
England,  and  will  never  be  imputed  to  any  people.  But  who 
brings  up  the  question  of  oaths  ?  He  who  strives  to  make 
twenty-four  miUion  of  persons  violate  the  oaths  they  have 
taken  to  their  present  constitution,  and  who  desires  to  re- 
establish the  House  of  Bourbon  by  such  violation  of  their 
vows.  I  put  it  so.  Sir,  because,  if  the  question  of  oaths  be  of 
the  least  consequence,  it  is  equal  on  both  sides.  He  who 
desires  the  whole  people  of  France  to  perjure  themselves,  and 
who  hopes  for  success  in  his  project  only  upon  their  doing  so. 


200  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

surely  cannot  make  it  a  charge  against  Bonaparte  that  he  has 
done  the  same. 

*'  Ah  !  but  Bonaparte  has  declared  it  as  his  opinion,  that 
the  two  governments  of  Great  Britain  and  of  France  cannot 
exist  together.  After  the  treaty  of  Campo  Formio,  he  sent 
two  confidential  persons,  Berthier  and  Monge,  to  the  directory 
to  say  so  in  his  name."  Well,  and  what  is  there  in  this  absurd 
and  puerile  assertion,  if  it  was  ever  made  ?  Has  not  the  right 
honourable  gentleman,  in  this  House,  said  the  same  thing  ? 
In  this,  at  least,  they  resemble  one  another.  They  have  both 
made  use  of  this  assertion  ;  and  I  believe  that  these  two  illus- 
trious persons  are  the  only  two  on  earth  who  think  it.  But 
let  us  turn  the  tables.  We  ought  to  put  ourselves  at  times  in 
the  place  of  the  enemy,  if  we  are  desirous  of  really  examining 
with  candour  and  fairness  the  dispute  between  us.  How  may 
they  not  interpret  the  speeches  of  ministers  and  their  friends, 
in  both  Houses  of  the  British  Parliament  ?  If  we  are  to  be 
told  of  the  idle  speech  of  Berthier  and  Monge,  may  they  not 
also  bring  up  speeches,  in  which  it  has  not  been  merely  hinted, 
but  broadly  asserted  that  **  the  two  constitutions  of  England 
and  France  could  not  exist  together  "  ?  May  not  these  offences 
and  charges  be  reciprocated  without  end  ?  Are  we  ever  to 
go  on  in  this  miserable  squabble  about  words  ?  Are  we  still, 
as  we  happen  to  be  successful  on  the  one  side  or  other,  to  bring 
up  these  important  accusations,  insults,  and  provocations 
against  each  other  ;  and  only  when  we  are  beaten  and  unfor- 
tunate to  think  of  treating  ?  Oh  !  pity  the  condition  of  man, 
gracious  God !  and  save  us  from  such  a  system  of  malevolence, 
in  which  all  our  old  and  venerated  prejudices  are  to  be  done 
away,  and  by  which  we  are  to  be  taught  to  consider  war  as 
the  natural  state  of  man,  and  peace  but  as  a  dangerous  and 
difficult  extremity  ! 

Sir,  this  temper  must  be  corrected.  It  is  a  diabolical  spirit, 
and  would  lead  to  interminable  war.  Our  history  is  full  of 
instances,  that  where  we  have  overlooked  a  proferred  occasion 
to  treat,  we  have  unifonnly  suffered  by  delay.  At  what  time 
did  we  ever  profit  by  obstinately  persevering  in  war  ?  We 
accepted  at  Ryswick  the  terms  we  had  refused  five  years  before, 
and  the  same  peace  which  was  concluded  at  Utrecht  might 
have  been  obtained  at  Gertruydenberg.  And  as  to  security 
from  the  future  machinations  or  ambition  of  the  French,  I 


FOX  201 

ask  you,  what  security  you  ever  had,  or  could  have  ?  Did  the 
different  treaties  made  with  Louis  XIV  serve  to  tie  his  hands, 
to  restrain  his  ambition,  or  to  stifle  his  restless  spirit  ?  At 
what  period  could  you  safely  repose  in  the  honour,  forbearance, 
and  moderation  of  the  French  Government  ?  Was  there  ever 
an  idea  of  refusing  to  treat,  because  the  peace  might  be  after- 
wards insecure  ?  The  peace  of  1763  was  not  accompanied 
with  securities  ;  and  it  was  no  sooner  made  than  the  French 
Court  began,  as  usual,  its  intrigues.  And  what  security  did 
the  right  honourable  gentleman  exact  at  the  peace  of  1783, 
in  which  he  was  engaged  ?  Were  we  rendered  secure  by  that 
peace  ?  The  right  honourable  gentleman  knows  well,  that 
soon  after  that  peace,  the  French  formed  a  plan,  in  conjunction 
with  the  Dutch,  of  attacking  our  Indian  possessions,  of  raising 
up  the  native  powers  against  us,  and  of  driving  us  out  of  India  ; 
as  the  French  are  desirous  of  doing  so  now — only  with  this 
difference,  that  the  cabinet  of  France  entered  into  this  project 
in  a  moment  of  profound  peace,  and  when  they  conceived  us 
to  be  lulled  into  perfect  security.  After  making  the  peace 
of  1783,  the  right  honourable  gentleman  and  his  friends  went 
out,  and  I  among  others,  came  into  office.  Suppose,  Sir,  we 
had  taken  up  the  jealousy  upon  which  the  right  honourable 
gentleman  now  acts,  and  had  refused  to  ratify  the  peace  that 
he  had  made.  Suppose  that  we  had  said — No  ;  France  is 
acting  a  perfidious  part — we  see  no  security  for  England  in 
this  treaty — they  want  only  a  respite,  in  order  to  attack  us 
again  in  an  important  part  of  our  dominions  ;  and  we  ought 
not  to  confirm  this  treaty.  I  ask,  would  the  right  honourable 
gentleman  have  supported  us  in  this  refusal  ?  I  say  that  upon 
his  present  reasoning  he  ought  ;  but  I  put  it  fairly  to  him, 
would  he  have  supported  us  in  refusing  to  ratify  the  treaty  upon 
such  a  pretence  ?  He  certainly  ought  not,  and  I  am  sure  he 
would  not  ;  but  the  course  of  reasoning  which  he  now  assumes 
would  have  justified  his  taking  such  a  ground.  On  the  con- 
trary, I  am  persuaded  that  he  would  have  said — "  This  is  a 
refinement  upon  jealousy.  Security !  You  have  security, 
the  only  security  that  you  can  ever  expect  to  get.  It  is  the 
present  interest  to  France  to  make  peace.  She  wiU  keep  it 
if  it  be  her  interest  :  she  wiU  break  it  if  it  be  her  interest ; 
such  is  the  state  of  nations  ;  and  you  have  nothing  but  your 
own  vigilance  for  your  security." 


202  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

"  It  is  not  the  interest  of  Bonaparte,"  it  seems,  "  sincerely 
to  enter  into  a  negotiation,  or,  if  he  should  even  make  peace, 
sincerely  to  keep  it."  But  how  are  we  to  decide  upon  his 
sincerity  ?  By  refusing  to  treat  with  him  ?  Surely  if  we  mean 
to  discover  his  sincerity,  we  ought  to  hear  the  propositions 
which  he  desires  to  make.  *'  But  peace  would  be  unfriendly 
to  his  system  of  military  despotism."  Sir,  I  hear  a  great  deal 
about  the  short-lived  nature  of  military  despotism.  I  wish  the 
history  of  the  world  would  bear  gentlemen  out  in  this  descrip- 
tion of  mihtary  despotism.  Was  not  the  government  erected  by 
Augustus  Caesar  a  military  despotism  ?  and  yet  it  endured  for 
six  or  seven  hundred  years.  Military  despotism,  unfortunately, 
is  too  likely  in  its  nature  to  be  permanent,  and  it  is  not  true 
that  it  depends  on  the  life  of  the  first  usurper.  Though  half 
the  Roman  Emperors  were  murdered,  yet  the  military  despot- 
ism went  on  ;  and  so  it  would  be,  I  fear,  in  France.  If 
Bonaparte  should  disappear  from  the  scene,  to  make  room, 
perhaps,  for  a  Berthier,  or  any  other  general,  what  difference 
would  that  make  in  the  quality  of  French  despotism,  or  in  our 
relation  to  the  country  ?  We  may  as  safely  treat  with  a 
Bonaparte,  or  with  any  of  his  successors,  be  they  who  they 
may,  as  we  could  with  a  Louis  XVI,  a  Louis  XVII,  or  a  Louis 
XVI 1 1.  There  is  no  difference  but  in  the  name.  Where  the 
power  essentially  resides,  thither  we  ought  to  go  for  peace. 

But,  Sir,  if  we  are  to  reason  on  the  fact,  I  should  think  it  is 
the  interest  of  Bonaparte  to  make  peace.  A  lover  of  military 
glory,  as  that  general  must  necessarily  be,  may  he  not  think 
that  his  measure  of  glory  is  full — that  it  may  be  tarnished  by 
a  reverse  of  fortune,  and  can  hardly  be  increased  by  any  new 
laurels  ?  He  must  feel,  that  in  the  situation  to  which  he  is 
now  raised,  he  can  no  longer  depend  on  his  own  fortune,  his 
own  genius,  and  his  own  talents,  for  a  continuance  of  his  suc- 
cess ;  he  must  be  under  the  necessity  of  emplo5H[ng  other 
generals,  whose  misconduct  or  incapacity  might  endanger  his 
power,  or  whose  triumphs  even  might  affect  the  interest  which 
he  holds  in  the  opinion  of  the  French.  Peace,  then,  would 
secure  to  him  what  he  has  achieved,  and  fix  the  inconstancy  of 
fortune.  But  this  will  not  be  his  only  motive.  He  must  see 
that  France  also  requires  a  respite — a  breathing  interval, 
to  recruit  her  wasted  strength.  To  procure  her  this  respite, 
would  be,  perhaps,  the  attainment  of  more  soHd  glory,  as  well 


FOX  203 

as  the  means  of  acquiring  more  solid  power,  than  anything 
which  he  can  hope  to  gain  from  arms,  and  from  the  proudest 
triumphs.  May  he  not  then  be  jealous  to  gain  this  fame,  the 
only  species  of  fame,  perhaps,  that  is  worth  acquiring  ?  Nay, 
granting  that  his  soul  may  still  burn  with  the  thirst  of  military 
exploits,  is  it  not  Hkely  that  he  is  disposed  to  yield  to  the 
feelings  of  the  French  people,  and  to  consolidate  his  power  by 
consulting  their  interests  ?  I  have  a  right  to  argue  in  this  way, 
when  suppositions  of  his  insincerity  are  reasoned  upon  on 
the  other  side.  Sir,  these  aspersions  are  in  truth  always  idle, 
and  even  mischievous.  I  have  been  too  long  accustomed 
to  hear  imputations  and  calumnies  thrown  out  upon  great  and 
honourable  characters,  to  be  much  influenced  by  them.  My 
honourable  and  learned  friend  (Mr.  Erskine)  has  paid  this  night 
a  most  just,  deserved,  and  honourable  tribute  of  applause 
to  the  memory  of  that  great  and  unparalleled  character,  who 
has  been  so  recently  lost  to  the  world.  I  must,  like  him,  beg 
leave  to  dwell  a  moment  on  the  venerable  George  Washington, 
though  I  know  that  it  is  impossible  for  me  to  bestow  anything 
hke  adequate  praise  on  a  character  which  gave  us,  more  than 
any  other  human  being,  the  example  of  a  perfect  man  ;  yet, 
good,  great,  and  unexampled  as  General  Washington  was,  I 
can  remember  the  time  when  he  was  not  better  spoken  of  in 
this  House  than  Bonaparte  is  now.  The  right  honourable 
gentleman  who  opened  this  debate  (Mr.  Dundas)  may  remember 
in  what  terms  of  disdain,  of  virulence,  and  even  of  contempt, 
General  Washington  was  spoken  of  by  gentlemen  on  that  side 
of  the  House.  Does  he  not  recollect  with  what  marks  of 
indignity  any  member  was  stigmatised  as  an  enemy  to  his 
country,  who  mentioned  with  common  respect  the  name  of 
George  Washington  ?  If  a  negotiation  had  then  been  proposed 
to  be  opened  with  great  men,  what  would  have  been  said  ? 
**  Would  you  treat  with  a  rebel,  a  traitor  !  What  an  example 
would  you  not  give  by  such  an  act  !  "  I  do  not  know  whether 
the  right  honourable  gentleman  may  not  yet  possess  some  of 
his  old  prejudices  on  the  subject.  I  hope  not.  I  hope  by  this 
time  we  are  all  convinced  that  a  republican  government,  like 
that  of  America,  may  exist  without  danger  or  injury  to  social 
order,  or  to  established  monarchies.  They  have  happily  shown 
that  they  can  maintain  the  relations  of  peace  and  amity  with 
other  states  ;   they  have  shown,  too,  that  they  are  alive  to  the 


204  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

feelings  of  honour  ;  but  they  do  not  lose  sight  of  plain  good 
sense  and  discretion.  They  have  not  refused  to  negotiate 
with  the  French,  and  they  have  accordingly  the  hopes  of  a 
speedy  termination  of  every  difference, — we  cry  up  their  conduct, 
but  we  do  not  imitate  it.  At  the  beginning  of  the  struggle 
we  were  told  that  the  French  were  setting  up  a  set  of  wild  and 
impracticable  theories,  and  we  ought  not  to  be  misled  by  them 
— we  could  not  grapple  with  theories.  Now  we  are  told  that 
we  must  not  treat,  because,  out  of  the  lottery,  Bonaparte  has 
drawn  such  a  prize  as  military  despotism.  Is  military  des- 
potism a  theory  ?  One  would  think  that  that  is  one  of  the 
practical  things  which  ministers  might  understand,  and  to 
which  they  would  have  no  particular  objection.  But  what 
is  our  present  conduct  founded  on  but  a  theory,  and  that  a 
most  wild  and  ridiculous  theory  ?  What  are  we  fighting  for  ? 
Not  for  a  principle  ;  not  for  security  ;  not  for  conquest  even  ; 
but  merely  for  an  experiment  and  a  speculation,  to  discover 
whether  a  gentleman  at  Paris  may  not  turn  out  a  better  man 
than  we  now  take  him  to  be. 

My  honourable  friend  (Mr.  Whitbread)  has  been  censured 
for  an  opinion  which  he  gave,  and  I  think  justly,  that  the 
change  of  property  in  France  since  the  Revolution  must  form 
an  insuperable  barrier  to  the  return  of  the  ancient  proprietors. 
"  No  such  thing,"  says  the  right  honourable  gentleman ; 
*'  nothing  can  be  more  easy.  Property  is  depreciated  to  such  a 
degree,  that  the  purchasers  would  easily  be  brought  to  restore 
the  estates."  I  very  much  differ  with  him  in  this  idea.  It  is 
the  character  of  every  such  convulsion  as  that  which  has 
ravaged  France,  that  an  infinite  and  indescribable  load  of 
misery  is  inflicted  upon  private  families.  The  heart  sickens  at 
the  recital  of  the  sorrows  which  it  engenders.  No  revolution 
implied,  though  it  may  have  occasioned  a  total  change  of  pro- 
perty. The  restoration  of  the  Bourbons  does  imply  it  and 
there  is  the  difference.  There  is  no  doubt  but  that  if  the  noble 
families  had  foreseen  the  duration  and  the  extent  of  the  evils 
which  were  to  fall  upon  their  heads,  they  would  have  taken  a 
very  different  line  of  conduct.  But  they  unfortunately  flew 
from  their  country.  The  King  and  his  advisers  sought  foreign 
aid.  A  confederacy  was  formed  to  restore  them  by  military 
force  ;  and  as  a  means  of  resisting  this  combination,  the 
estates  of  the  fugitives  were  confiscated  and  sold.     However 


IJ'OX  205 

compassion  may  deplore  the  case,  it  cannot  be  said  that  the 
thing  is  unprecedented.  The  people  have  always  resorted 
to  such  means  of  defence.  Now  the  question  is,  how  this 
property  is  to  be  got  out  of  their  hands  ?  If  it  be  true,  as  I 
have  heard,  that  the  purchasers  of  national  and  forfeited 
estates  amount  to  1,500,000  persons,  I  see  no  hopes  of  their 
being  forced  to  deliver  up  their  property  ;  nor  do  I  even  know 
that  they  ought.  I  question  the  policy,  even  if  the  thing  were 
practicable  ;  but  I  assert  that  such  a  body  of  new  proprietors 
forms  an  insurmountable  barrier  to  the  restoration  of  the 
ancient  order  of  things.  Never  was  a  revolution  consolidated 
by  a  pledge  so  strong. 

•  But,  as  if  this  were  not  itself  sufficient,  Louis  XVIII,  from 
his  retirement  at  Mittau,  puts  forth  a  manifesto,  in  which  he 
assures  the  friends  of  his  House,  that  he  is  about  to  come  back 
with  all  the  powers  which  formerly  belonged  to  his  family. 
He  does  not  promise  to  the  people  a  constitution  which  may 
tend  to  conciliate  ;  but,  stating  that  he  is  to  come  with  all  the 
ancien  regime,  they  would  naturally  attach  to  it  its  proper 
appendages  of  bastilles — lettres  de  cachet,  gabelle,  etc.  And  the 
noblesse,  for  whom  this  proclamation  was  pecuharly  conceived, 
would  also  naturally  feel,  that  if  the  monarch  was  to  be  restored 
to  all  his  privileges,  they  surely  were  to  be  reinstated  in  their 
estates  without  a  compensation  to  the  purchasers.  Is  this 
likely  to  make  the  people  wish  for  the  restoration  of  royalty  ? 
I  have  no  doubt  but  there  may  be  a  number  of  Chouans  in 
France,  though  I  am  persuaded  that  little  dependence  is  to  be 
placed  on  their  efforts.  There  may  be  a  number  of  people 
dispersed  over  France,  and  particularly  in  certain  provinces, 
who  may  retain  a  degree  of  attachment  to  royalty ;  and  how 
the  government  will  contrive  to  compromise  with  that  spirit, 
I  know  not.  I  suspect,  however,  that  Bonaparte  will  try  ; 
his  efforts  have  been  turned  to  that  object ;  and,  if  we  may 
believe  report,  he  has  succeeded  to  a  considerable  degree. 
He  will  naturally  call  to  his  recollection  the  precedent  which 
the  history  of  France  itself  will  furnish.  The  once  formidable 
insurrection  of  the  Huguenots  was  completely  stifled  and  the 
party  conciliated,  by  the  policy  of  Henry  IV,  who  gave  them 
such  privileges  and  raised  them  so  high  in  the  Government, 
as  to  make  some  persons  apprehend  danger  therefrom  to  the 
unity  of  the  Empire,  nor  wiU  the  French  be  likely  to  forget  the 


206  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

revocation  of  the  edict — one  of  the  memorable  acts  of  the  House 
of  Bourbon — an  act  which  was  never  surpassed  in  atrocity, 
injustice  and  impohcy,  by  anything  that  has  disgraced  Jaco- 
binism. If  Bonaparte  shall  attempt  some  similar  arrangement 
to  that  of  Henry  IV,  with  the  Chouans,  who  will  say  that  he 
is  likely  to  fail  ?  He  wiU  meet  with  no  great  obstacle  to  success 
from  the  influence  which  our  ministers  have  established  with 
the  chiefs,  or  in  the  attachment  and  dependence  which  they 
have  on  our  protection  ;  for  what  has  the  right  honourable 
gentleman  told  him,  in  stating  the  contingencies  in  which  he 
wiU  treat  with  Bonaparte  ?  He  will  excite  a  rebellion  in  France 
— he  will  give  support  to  the  Chouans,  if  they  can  stand  their 
ground ;  but  he  will  not  make  common  cause  with  them  : 
for  unless  they  can  depose  Bonaparte,  send  him  into  banish- 
ment, or  execute  him,  he  will  abandon  the  Chouans,  and  treat 
with  this  very  man,  whom,  at  the  same  time,  he  describes 
as  holding  the  reins  and  wielding  the  powers  of  France  for 
purposes  of  unexampled  barbarity. 

Sir,  I  wish  the  atrocities  of  which  we  hear  so  much,  and  which 
I  abhor  as  much  as  any  man,  were,  indeed,  unexampled.  I 
fear  that  they  do  not  belong  exclusively  to  the  French.  When 
the  right  honourable  gentleman  speaks  of  the  extraordinary 
successes  of  the  last  campaign,  he  does  not  mention  the  horrors 
by  which  some  of  those  successes  were  accompanied.  Naples, 
for  instance,  has  been,  among  others,  what  is  called  '*  delivered," 
and  yet  if  I  am  rightly  informed,  it  has  been  stained  and  pol- 
luted with  murders  so  ferocious,  and  by  cruelties  of  every 
kind  so  abhorrent,  that  the  heart  shudders  at  the  recital.  It 
has  been  said  not  only  that  the  miserable  victims  of  the  rage 
and  brutality  of  the  fanatics  were  savagely  murdered,  but 
that,  in  many  instances,  their  flesh  was  eaten  and  devoured 
by  cannibals  who  are  the  advocates  and  the  instruments  of 
social  order !  Nay,  England  is  not  totally  exempt  from 
reproach,  if  the  rumours  which  are  circulated  be  true.  I  will 
mention  a  fact,  to  give  ministers  the  opportunity,  if  it  be  false, 
of  wiping  away  the  stain  that  it  must  otherwise  fix  on  the 
British  name.  It  is  said  that  a  party  of  the  republican  inhabi- 
tants of  Naples  took  shelter  in  the  fortress  of  the  Castel  de 
Uova.  They  were  besieged  by  a  detachment  from  the  royal 
army,  to  whom  they  refused  to  surrender  ;  but  demanded  that 
a  British  ofiicer  should  be  brought  forward,  and  to  him  they 


FOX  207 

capitulated.  They  made  terms  with  him  under  the  sanction 
of  the  British  name.  It  was  agreed  that  their  persons  and 
their  property  should  be  safe  and  that  they  should  be  conveyed 
to  Toulon.  They  were  accordingly  put  on  board  a  vessel ; 
but  before  they  sailed,  their  property  was  confiscated,  num- 
bers of  them  taken  out,  thrown  into  dungeons,  and  some  of  them 
I  understand,  notwithstanding  the  British  guarantee,  actually 
executed. 

Where  then.  Sir,  is  this  war,  which  on  every  side  is  pregnant 
with  such  horrors,  to  be  carried  ?  Where  is  it  to  stop  ?  Not 
till  you  establish  the  House  of  Bourbon  !  And  this  you  cherish 
the  hope  of  doing,  because  you  have  had  a  successful  campaign. 
Why,  Sir,  before  you  have  had  a  successful  campaign.  The 
situation  of  the  allies,  with  all  they  have  gained,  is  surely  not 
to  be  compared  now  to  what  it  was  when  you  had  taken 
Valenciennes,  Quesnoy,  Conde,  etc.,  which  induced  some 
gentlemen  in  this  House  to  prepare  themselves  for  a  march  to 
Paris ;  with  all  that  you  have  gained,  you  surely  will  not  say 
that  the  prospect  is  brighter  now  than  it  was  then.  What 
have  you  gained  but  the  recovery  of  a  part  of  what  you  before 
lost  ?  One  campaign  is  successful  to  you — another  to  them  ; 
and  in  this  way,  animated  by  the  vindictive  passions  of  revenge, 
hatred,  and  rancour,  which  are  infinitely  more  flagitious,  even, 
than  those  of  ambition  and  the  thirst  for  power,  you  may  go 
on  for  ever  ;  as,  with  such  black  incentives,  I  see  no  end  to 
human  misery.  And  all  this  without  an  intelligible  motive — 
all  this  because  you  may  gain  a  better  peace  a  year  or  two 
hence  !  So  that  we  are  called  upon  to  go  on  merely  as  a 
speculation.  We  must  keep  Bonaparte  for  some  time  longer 
at  war,  as  a  state  of  probation.  Gracious  God,  Sir,  is  it  a 
state  of  probation  ?  Is  peace  a  rash  system  ?  Is  it  dangerous 
for  nations  to  live  in  amity  with  each  other  ?  Is  your  vigilance, 
your  policy,  your  common  powers  of  observation  to  be  extin- 
guished by  putting  an  end  to  the  horrors  of  war  ?  Cannot  this 
state  of  probation  be  as  well  undergone  without  adding  to  the 
catalogue  of  human  sufferings  ?  "  But  we  must  pause !  " 
What  !  must  the  bowels  of  Great  Britain  be  torn  out — her 
best  blood  be  spilt — her  treasure  wasted — that  you  may  make 
an  experiment  ?  Put  yourselves — Oh  !  that  you  would  put 
yourselves — in  the  field  of  battle,  and  learn  to  judge  of  the  sort 
of  horrors  that  you  excite.     In  former  wars  a  man  might,  at 


208  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

least,  have  some  feeling,  some  interest,  that  served  to  balance 
in  his  mind  the  impressions  which  a  scene  of  carnage  and  of 
death  must  inflict.  If  a  man  had  been  present  at  the  battle  of 
Blenheim,  for  instance,  and  had  enquired  the  motive  of  the 
battle,  there  was  not  a  soldier  engaged  who  could  not  have 
satisfied  his  curiosity,  and  even,  perhaps,  allayed  his  feelings 
— they  were  fighting  to  repress  the  uncontrolled  ambition  of 
the  Grand  Monarque.  But,  if  a  man  were  present  now  at  a 
field  of  slaughter,  and  were  to  inquire  for  what  they  were  fight- 
ing— "  Fighting  "  !  would  he  answer  ;  '*  they  are  not  fighting, 
they  are  pausing."  "  Why  is  that  man  expiring  ?  Why  is 
that  other  writhing  in  agony  ?  What  means  this  implacable 
fury  ? "  The  answer  must  be,  "  You  are  quite  wrong.  Sir, 
you  deceive  yourself.  They  are  not  fighting — Do  not  disturb 
them — they  are  merely  pausing  ! — this  man  is  not  expiring 
with  agony — that  man  is  not  dead — he  is  only  pausing  1  Lord 
help  you.  Sir  !  They  are  not  angry  with  one  another  ;  they 
have  no  cause  of  quarrel — but  their  country  thinks  there  should 
be  a  pause.  All  that  you  see,  Sir,  is  nothing  hke  fighting — 
there  is  no  harm,  nor  cruelty,  nor  bloodshed  in  it  whatever — 
It  is  nothing  more  than  a  political  pause !  it  is  merely  to  try 
an  experiment — to  see  whether  Bonaparte  will  not  behave 
himself  better  than  heretofore  ;  and  in  the  meantime  we  have 
agreed  to  pause,  in  pure  friendship  !  "  And  is  this  the  way, 
Sir,  that  you  are  to  show  yourselves  the  advocates  of  order  ? 
You  take  up  a  system  calculated  to  uncivilize  the  world,  to 
destroy  order,  to  trample  on  religion,  to  stifle  in  the  heart,  not 
merely  the  generosity  of  noble  sentiment,  but  the  affections  of 
social  nature  ;  and  in  the  prosecution  of  this  system,  you 
spread  terror  and  devastation  around  you. 
•  Sir,  I  have  done.  I  have  told  you  my  opinion.  I  think 
you  ought  to  have  given  a  civil,  clear,  and  explicit  answer  to 
the  overture  which  was  fairly  and  handsomely  made  to  you. 
If  you  were  desirous  that  the  negotiation  should  have  included 
all  your  allies,  as  the  means  of  bringing  about  a  general  peace, 
you  should  have  told  Bonaparte  so  ;  But  I  believe  you  were 
afraid  of  his  agreeing  to  the  proposal.  You  took  that  method 
before.  "  Aye,  but,"  you  say,  **  the  people  were  anxious  for 
peace  in  1797."  I  say  they  are  friends  to  peace  now ;  and  I 
am  confident  that  you  will  one  day  own  it.  Believe  me, 
they  are  friends  to  peace  ;    although,  by  the  laws  which  you 


FOX  209 

have  made,  restraining  the  expression  of  the  sense  of  the  people, 
pubhc  opinion  cannot  now  be  heard  as  loudly  and  unequivo- 
cally as  heretofore.  But  I  will  not  go  into  the  internal  state 
of  this  country.  It  is  too  afflicting  to  the  heart  to  see  the 
strides  which  have  been  made,  by  means  of,  and  under  the 
miserable  pretext  of  this  war  ;  against  liberty  of  every  kind, 
both  of  speech  and  of  writing  ;  and  to  observe  in  another 
Kingdom  the  rapid  approaches  to  that  military  despotism 
which  we  affect  to  make  an  argument  against  peace.  I  know. 
Sir,  that  pubHc  opinion,  if  it  could  be  collected,  would  be  for 
peace,  as  much  now  as  in  1797  and  I  know  that  it  is  only  by 
public  opinion — not  by  a  sense  of  their  duty — not  by  the 
inclination  of  their  owti  minds — that  ministers  will  be  brought, 
if  ever,  to  give  us  peace.  I  conclude,  Sir,  with  repeating  what 
I  said  before  ;  I  ask  for  no  gentleman's  vote  who  would  have 
reprobated  the  compliance  of  ministers  with  the  proposition 
of  the  French  government  ;  I  ask  for  no  gentleman's  support 
to-night  who  would  have  voted  against  ministers,  if  they  had 
come  down  and  proposed  to  enter  into  a  negotiation  with  the 
French  ;  but  I  have  a  right  to  ask — I  know,  that  in  honour, 
in  consistency,  in  conscience,  I  have  a  right  to  expect  the  vote 
of  every  gentleman  who  would  have  voted  with  ministers  in 
an  address  to  his  Majesty,  diametrically  opposite  to  the  motion 
of  this  night. 


14— {2170) 


SHERIDAN 

Richard  Brinsley  Sheridan  was,  perhaps,  the  most  brilliant 
orator  of  the  eighteenth  century.  His  great  speech  on  the 
impeachment  of  Warren  Hastings  was  considered  by  many 
good  judges  to  be  the  best  delivered  at  the  trial.  If  his  fame 
as  a  dramatist  has  somewhat  obscured  his  reputation  as  a 
speaker,  that  does  not  alter  the  fact  that  he  achieved  high 
fame  as  a  rhetorician  in  a  peculiarly  rhetorical  age.  The 
wittiest  debater  of  his  time,  he  was  also  in  some  respects  the 
most  ornate.  For  if  his  periods  were  less  laboured  than 
Burke's,  they  were  also  more  polished  from  a  literary  point  of 
view.  Of  course  Sheridan  is  not  to  be  estimated  by  purely 
Parliamentary  standards.  He  was  a  conscious  artist,  playing 
upon  the  political  as  he  played  upon  the  drama>tic,  stage,  with 
a  trained  eye  for  scenic  effect.  But  though  he  was  a  great 
actor  at  Westminster,  he  was  also  much  more.  He  was  a 
master  of  the  English  language,  whose  periods  and  cadences 
rose  and  fell  with  a  calculated  and  effective  splendour.  Even 
when  he  simply  amused  the  House  of  Commons,  he  spoke  with 
the  fluency  and  ease  of  an  expert  composer.  It  was  not  his 
object  to  convince  or  to  persuade,  so  much  as  to  instruct  and 
to  delight.  A  staunch  and  loyal  Whig,  he  did  not  greatly 
occupy  himself  with  the  foundation  of  the  Whig  creed.  He 
went  with  his  party,  and  illustrated  their  principles  with  his 
imagination,  eloquence,  and  humour.  He  belongs  to  the  class 
of  speakers  who  aim  rather  at  illuminating  fact  by  fancy  than 
at  pushing  an  argument  to  a  conclusion.  The  success  of  such 
an  orator  as  Sheridan  implies  leisure  as  well  as  taste  in  the 
House  of  Commons.  He  did  not  consider  the  demands  of 
business.  He  rose  to  deliver  speeches  carefully  prepared, 
and  adorned  with  aU  the  art  which  literary  skill  could  bestow. 
They  must  be  regarded  as  brilliant  contributions  to  a  political 
tournament  rather  than  parts  of  a  practical  discussion  upon 

210 


SHERIDAN  211 

matters  of  pressing  moment.  Sheridan  did  not  think  of  votes. 
He  treated  ParHament  to  the  best  form  of  entertainment  he 
could  provide,  the  highest  kind  of  hterary  rhetoric  that  his 
accomphshments  enabled  him  to  produce.  But  at  the  same 
time  he  held  strong  political  convictions,  and  he  has  not 
always  received  credit  for  the  tenacity  with  which  he  adhered 
to  them.  He  was  always  a  firm  and  consistent  Whig,  who 
never  shrank  from  the  expression  of  his  opinions  because  they 
were  unpopular.  His  hold  upon  the  House  of  Commons  was 
extraordinary,  and  the  brilliancy  of  his  gifts  was  always 
employed  upon  the  side  which  he  had  conscientiously  taken 
up.  His  speeches  deserve  to  be  studied*  because  they  put  the 
Whig  creed  in  a  literary  form,  not  the  creed  of  the  old  Whigs 
as  expounded  by  Burke,  but  the  doctrines  usually  associated 
with  the  name  of  Fox.  The  House  of  Commons  which  Sheridan 
addressed  -was  a  critical  and  fastidious  audience,  but  suscep- 
tible to  the  effect  of  oratory  such  as  his,  which  appealed  at 
once  to  the  reason  and  to  the  feelings.  If  Sheridan  had 
belonged  to  the  class  which  then  ruled  England  he  would 
have  held  high  ofhce  in  the  State.  As  it  was,  he  belonged  to 
the  class  of  speakers  who  are  always  heard  with  willingness, 
because  they  give  of  their  best,  and  do  not  forget  in  the  use  of 
rhetoric  that  it  has  serious  ends  to  serve.  It  would  be  a  great 
mistake  to  confound  him  with  men  who  speak  for  speaking's 
sake,  or  with  adventurers  who  treat  politics  as  an  instrument 
of  political  ambition.  He  was  quite  as  sincere  as  Pitt,  and  had 
no  dread  of  unpopularity.  But  it  was  not  in  debate  that  he 
shone.  He  wanted  room.  He  had  to  develop  his  own  ideas 
independently  of  others  when  he  wished  to  produce  conviction 
upon  the  public  mind.  No  statesman  of  his  time  adhered 
more  closely  to  his  principles,  or  confronted  obloquy  with 
more  cheerfulness.  His  wit  and  his  eloquence  were  never 
bestowed  upon  any  cause  in  which  he  did  not  himself  believe. 
What  really  distinguishes  his  oratory  from  the  general  run 
of  public   speaking  is  that  it  bears  upon  it  the  mark  of  high 


212  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

literary  excellence.  Even  of  Burke  that  is  not  true  in  the  same 
sense.  For  Burke  never  hesitated  to  sacrifice  elegance  of  style 
when  it  was  necessary  to  clinch  an  argument  by  facts  or 
statistics.  Sheridan  was  too  thorough  an  artist  to  separate 
matter  from  form. 

In  that  way  he  became  the  prince  of  those  speakers  who 
could  amuse  without  irritating,  and  persuade  without  fatiguing, 
the  House  of  Commons.  His  speeches  are  remarkable  not  so 
much  for  arrangement  as  for  fluency,  lucidity,  polish,  and 
ease.  It  was  said  of  Pitt  that  he  never  paused  for  a  word,  that 
he  never  repeated  a  word,  and  that  he  never  misplaced  a  word. 
Sheridan  had  not  the  same  regular  greatness.  But  he  pro- 
ceeded with  exquisite  ease  and  grace  from  one  point  to  another 
while  at  the  same  time  he  never  forgot  the  main  point  of 
his  case,  or  allowed  it  to  be  supposed  that  he  was  merely 
displaying  his  talents  in  the  best  available  arena. 

The  Trial  of  Warren  Hastings 

Passages  from  the  Speech  in  Summing  up  the  Evidence  on  the 

Second  Article  of  Charge,  relating  to  the  Begums 

of  Oude 

June  3rd,  6th,  lOth,  13th,  1788 

Prefatory  Note. — This  speech  is  generally  considered  to  have  been 
the  most  powerful  statement  of  the  case  against  Hastings. 

If  your  Lordships  look  over  the  evidence,  you  will  see  a  country 
that,  even  in  the  time  of  Suja-ud-Dowla,  is  represented  as 
populous — desolated.  A  person  looking  at  this  shocking 
picture  of  calamity  would  have  been  inclined  to  ask,  if  he  had 
been  a  stranger  to  what  had  passed  in  India — if  we  could  sup- 
pose a  person  to  have  come  suddenly  into  the  country,  un- 
acquainted with  any  circumstances  that  had  passed  since  the 
days  of  Suja-ud-Dowla — he  would  naturally  ask,  *'  What  cruel 
hand  has  wrought  this  wide  desolation  ?  What  barbarian 
foe  has  invaded  the  country,  has  desolated  its  fields,  depopu- 
lated its  villages  ?  "  He  would  ask,  "  What  disputed  succes- 
sion, what  civil  rage,  what  mad  frenzy  of  the  inhabitants,  has 
induced  them  to  act  in  hostility  to  the  beneficent  works  of 
God  and  the  beauteous  works  of  man  ?  "    He  would  ask. "  What 


SHERIDAN  213 

religious  zeal  or  frenzy  has  added  to  the  mad  despair  and  horrors 
of  war  ?  The  ruin  is  unUke  anything  that  appears  recorded  in 
any  age.  It  looks  hke  neither  the  barbarities  of  men  nor  the 
judgment  of  vindictive  Heaven.  There  is  a  waste  of  desolation, 
as  if  caused  by  fell  destroyers  never  meaning  to  return, 
and  who  make  but  a  short  period  of  their  rapacity.  It  looks 
as  if  some  fabled  monster  had  made  its  passage  through  the 
country,  whose  pestiferous  breath  had  blasted  more  than  its 
voracious  appetite  could  devour." 

If  there  had  been  any  men  in  the  country  who  had  not  their 
heart  and  soul  so  subdued  by  fear  as  to  refuse  to  speak  the 
truth  at  aU  upon  such  a  subject,  they  would  have  told  him 
there  had  been  no  war  since  the  time  of  Suja-ud-Dowla — 
tyrant  indeed  as  he  was,  but  then  deeply  regretted  by  his 
subjects ;  that  no  hostile  blow  of  any  enemy  had  been  struck  in 
that  land  ;  that  there  had  been  no  disputed  succession,  no  civil 
war,  no  religious  frenzy;  but  that  these  were  the  tokens  of 
British  friendship,  the  marks  of  the  embraces  of  British  alliance 
— more  dreadful  than  the  blows  of  the  bitterest  enemy.  That 
they  had  made  a  Prince  a  slave,  to  make  himself  the  principal 
in  the  extortion  upon  his  subjects.  They  would  tell  him  that 
their  rapacity  increased  in  proportion  as  the  means  of  supplying 
their  avarice  diminished.  They  made  the  Sovereign  pay  as 
if  they  had  a  right  to  an  increased  price,  because  the  labour  of 
extortion  and  plunder  increased.  They  would  teU  him  it  was 
to  these  causes  these  calamities  were  owing.  Need  I  refer 
your  Lordships  to  this  strong  testimony  of  Major  Naylor,  when 
he  rescued  Colonel  Hannay  from  their  hands,  when  you  see  that 
this  people,  bom  to  submission,  bred  to  most  abject  subjection, 
yet  that  they,  in  whose  meek  hearts  injury  had  never  yet 
begot  resentment  nor  even  despair  bred  courage — that  their 
hatred,  their  abhorrence  of  Colonel  Hannay  was  such  that 
they  clung  round  him  by  thousands  and  thousands  ;  that  when 
Major  Naylor  rescued  him  they  refused  life  from  the  hand  that 
could  rescue  Hannay ;  .  that  they  nourished  this  desperate 
consolation  that  by  their  death  they  should  at  least  thin  the 
number  of  wretches  that  should  suffer  by  his  devastation  and 
extortion  ?  He  says,  when  he  crossed  the  river  he  found  the 
poor  wretches  quivering  on  the  parched  banks  of  the  polluted 
river,  encouraging  their  blood  to  flow — encouraging  the  thought 
that  their  blood  would  not  sink  into  the  earth,  but  rise  to  the 


214  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

common  God  of  humanity,  and  cry  aloud  for  vengeance  on 
their  cursed  destroyers. 

This  warm  description,  which  is  no  declamation  of  mine, 
but  founded  in  actual  fact,  is  a  fair,  clear  proof  before  your 
Lordships.  I  say  it  speaks  powerfully  what  the  cause  of  these 
oppressions  was  and  the  justness  of  those  feelings  that  were 
occasioned  by  them.  And  then  I  am  asked  to  prove  why  these 
people  arose  in  such  concert  !  "  There  must  have  been 
machinations,  and  the  Begums'  machinations,  to  produce 
this;  there  was  concert.  Why  did  they  rise?"  Because 
they  were  people  in  human  shape  :  the  poor  souls  had  human 
feelings.  Because  patience  under  the  detested  tyranny  of 
man  is  rebellion  to  the  sovereignty  of  God.  Because  allegiance 
to  that  power  that  gives  us  the  forms  of  men  commands  us  to 
maintain  the  rights  of  men.  And  never  yet  was  this  truth 
dismissed  from  the  human  heart — never,  in  any  time,  in  any 
age — never  in  any  clime  where  nude  man  ever  had  any  social 
feeling,  or  when  corrupt  refinement  had  subdued  all  feeling 
— never  was  this  one  unextinguishable  truth  destroyed  from 
the  heart  of  man,  placed  in  the  core  and  centre  of  it  by  its 
Maker,  that  man  was  not  made  the  property  of  man  ;  that 
human  power  is  a  trust  for  human  benefit,  and  that,  when  it  is 
abused,  revenge  is  justice  if  not  the  duty  of  the  injured.  These, 
my  Lords,  were  the  reasons  why  these  people  rose. 

But,  believe  Mr.  Hastings'  account,  and  no  one  of  these 
causes  produced  this  effect  ;  no  one  cause  could  produce  its 
natural  inevitable  consequence.  Breach  of  faith  did  not 
create  distrust  ;  want  of  pay  did  not  create  mutiny.  Famine 
did  not  pinch.  Drought  did  not  parch.  No  ;  it  was  the 
machinations  of  these  wonderful  women,  who  sat  as  it  were 
dealing  in  incantations  within  the  sacred  wall  of  their  zenana, 
and  disturbing  the  country  which  would  otherwise  remain 
in  peace  and  gratitude  to  its  protectors.  No  ;  it  was  an 
audacious  falsity. 

I  call  upon  Mr.  Hastings  himself  to  sum  up  my  evidence 
upon  this  subject.  I  appeal  again  to  his  testimony.  When 
he  states  that  the  rapacity,  the  peculation,  the  fraud,  of  those 
British  persons  in  India  had  excited  the  rage  of  the  whole 
country,  he  sums  up,  he  clinches,  my  evidence  ;  and  then, 
with  bold,  frontless  mockery,  attempts  to  turn  to  your  Lord- 
ships, and  to  account  for  this  by  fictitious  causes — by  causes 


SHERIDAN  215 

too  inadequate  ever  since  corruption  composed  a  part  of  the 
wickedness,  or  credulity  a  part  of  the  weakness,  of  human 
nature. 

My  Lords,  wishing  to  put  everything  I  say  to  the  test  of  the 
evidence  before  your  Lordships,  I  feel  no  presumption  in 
saying  that  I  think  I  have  proved  the  innocence  of  the  Begums 
respecting  these  three  accusations  :  and  now  your  Lordships 
will  judge  whether  I  pursue  the  argument  fairly,  when  I  say 
that  I  am  ready  to  admit  to  the  Counsel  that,  because  I  have 
cleared  them,  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  I  have  condemned 
Mr.  Hastings.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  a  proof  of  their 
innocence  is  necessarily  a  proof  of  his  guilt.  I  will  admit  that, 
because  it  is  possible  that,  being  rash  and  involved  in  various 
difficulties  at  the  time,  a  person  might  have  been  imposed  upon 
with  respect  to  the  grounds  upon  which  he  acted,  and,  though 
no  real  guilt  did  then  exist  in  the  Begums'  conduct,  yet  that  he 
might  in  his  conscience  have  been  persuaded  that  there  did. 
But,  in  order  to  prove  this,  it  must  first  appear  that,  from  the 
moment  he  cherished  and  had  that  persuasion  in  his  mind,  it 
continued  in  force  in  his  breast  till  the  moment  when  he  carried 
his  vindictive  measures  against  them  into  execution.  If  he 
took  up  a  hasty  prejudice,  which  he  afterwards  had  the  means 
to  see  the  error  of  and  to  dismiss  from  his  mind — if  after  that 
he  persevered  with  criminal  obstinacy  in  the  persecution  of 
these  women,  then  I  say  he  is  guilty. 

But  I  will  show  your  Lordships  that  he  never  could  have 
been  deceived  for  a  single  moment  upon  the  subject  ;  that  no 
man  knew  better  than  he — indeed,  no  man  had  better  reason 
to  know — the  true  source  and  origin  of  these  rumours  and 
accusations  ;  because  he  himself  was  the  source  and  origin  of 
them.  In  order  to  see  whether  Mr.  Hastings  believed  these 
accusations,  we  must  look  a  little  into  his  conduct  at  the  time 
that  this  belief  must  have  come  into  his  mind.  What  were 
the  communications  that  he  made  upon  it  ?  And  what  were 
his  accounts  of  the  whole  transaction  afterwards  ?  If  we 
here  find  one  uniform,  consistent,  story,  although  we  know  it 
to  have  been  taken  up  and  founded  upon  a  false  base,  yet 
stiU  there  is  a  presumption — a  possibility  at  least — of  his 
being  innocent.  But  if  we  find  nothing  but  suppression  of 
letters,  nothing  but  equivocation,  prevarication,  direct  false- 
hoods, concealments  and  false  reasons  for  that  concealment. 


216  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

and  at  last  false  and  contradictory  accounts  to  every  person 

to  whom  he  relates  the  transactions  of  the  whole,  in  such  a 

case  there  cannot  be  innocence — it  is  impossible. 
*  *  * 

An  honourable  friend  of  mine,  who  is  now,  I  believe,  near 
me,  in  opening  this  business — a  gentleman  to  whom  I  never 
can  on  any  occasion  refer  without  feelings  of  respect,  and  on 
this  subject  without  feelings  of  the  most  grateful  homage — a 
gentleman  whose  abilities  upon  this  occasion,  as  upon  some 
former  ones,  happily  for  the  glory  of  the  age  in  which  we  live, 
are  not  entrusted  merely  to  the  perishable  eloquence  of  the  day, 
but  will  live  to  be  the  admiration  of  that  hour  when  all  of  us 
are  mute  and  most  of  us  are  forgotten — that  honourable  gentle- 
man has  told  you  that  prudence,  the  first  of  virtues,  never  can 
be  used  in  the  cause  of  vice.  If,  reluctant  and  diffident,  I 
might  take  the  liberty,  I  should  express  a  doubt  whether 
experience,  observation  or  history,  will  warrant  us  in  fully 
assenting  to  that.  It  is  a  noble  and  lovely  sentiment,  my 
Lords — worthy  the  mind  of  him  that  uttered  it — worthy  that 
proud  disdain — that  generous  scorn  of  the  means  and  instru- 
ments of  vice — which  virtue  and  genius  must  feel.  But  I 
should  doubt  whether  we  can  read  the  history  of  a  Philip  of 
Macedon,  of  Caesar  or  of  Cromwell,  if  we  apprehend  prudence 
to  be  discreetly  and  successfully  conducing  some  purpose  to 
its  end,  without  confessing  that  there  have  been  evil  purposes, 
baneful  to  the  peace  and  to  the  rights  of  men,  conducted,  if 
I  may  not  say  with  prudence  or  with  wisdom,  yet  with  awful 
craft  and  most  successful  and  commanding  subtlety.  But, 
if  I  might  make  a  distinction,  I  should  say  that  it  is  the  proud 
attempt  to  mix  a  variety  of  lordly  crimes  that  unsettles  the 
prudence  of  the  mind  and  breeds  the  distraction  of  the  brain  ; 
that  one  master  passion  domineering  in  the  breast  may  win  the 
faculties  of  the  understanding  to  advance  its  purpose,  and  to 
direct  to  that  object  everything  that  thought  or  human  know- 
ledge can  effect.  But,  to  succeed,  it  must  maintain  a  solitary 
despotism  in  the  mind  :  each  rival  profligacy  must  stand  aloof 
or  wait  in  abject  vassalage  upon  its  throne.  For  the  power 
that  has  not  forbade  the  entrance  of  evil  passions  into  man's 
mind  has  at  least  forbade  their  union  :  if  they  meet  they  defeat 
their  object — their  conquest  or  their  attempt — and  it  is  tumult. 
Turn   to   the   virtues.     How   different   the   decree  !     Formed 


SHERIDAN  217 

to  connect — to  blend — to  associate  and  to  co-operate  ;  bearing 

the  same  course  of  kindred  energies  and  harmonious  sympathy  ; 

each  perfect  in  its  own  lovely  sphere  ;  each  moving  in  its  wider 

or  more   contracted   orbit   with   different   but   concentrating 

powers,  guided  by  the  same  influence  of  reason,  endeavouring 

at  the  same  blessed  end — the  happiness  of  the  individual,  the 

harmony  of  the  species  and  the  glory  of  the  Creator.     But  in 

the  vices  it  is  the  discord  that  ensures  defeat ;   each  clamours 

to  be  heard  in  its  own  barbarous  language  ;    each  claims  the 

exclusive  cunning  of  the  brain  ;    each  thwarts  and  reproaches 

the  other,  and  even  while  their  fell  rage  assails  with  common 

hate  the  peace  and  virtue  of  the  world,  the  civil  war  among 

their  own  tumultuous  legions  defeats  the  purpose  of  the  foul 

conspiracy.     These  are  the  furies  of  the  mind,  my  Lords,  that 

unsettle  the  understanding  ;    these  are  the  furies  of  the  mind 

that  destroy  the  virtue  of  prudence ;  while  the  distracted  brain 

and  shivered  intellect  proclaim  the  tumult  that  is  within,  and 

bear  their  testimonies  from  the  mouth  of  God  Himself  to  the 

foul  condition  of  the  heart. 

*  *  * 

I  beg  your  Lordships  to  review  for  a  moment  shortly — and 
I  really  must  apologise  to  your  Lordships  for  wishing  you  to 
dwell  longer  upon  subjects  which  must  be  so  exasperating  to 
the  human  heart  to  contemplate — but  I  wish  your  Lordships 
to  review  for  a  moment  the  whole  progress  of  this  business, 
from  that  period  of  time  which  I  first  stated  to  be  the  period 
when  he  [Hastings]  first  determined  upon  this  measure  [the 
spoliation  of  the  Oudh  dowagers].  Your  lordships  remem- 
ber that,  after  his  disappointment  at  Bidjey  Ghur,  that 
instant  he  seems  to  have  turned  an  eye  of  death  upon  the 
palace  at  Fyzabad.  At  that  glance — at  that  fell  glance — 
peace,  faith,  joy,  careless  innocence  and  feeble  confidence, 
that  lay  reposing  under  the  superstitious  shade  of  those  pro- 
tected walls,  receive  their  inexorable  doom.  You  see  him 
instantly  despatching  Mr.  Middleton  to  Lucknow  to  bear  his 
orders,  and  then  to  gather  justification.  After  that,  you  see 
the  correspondence  carried  on  between  Sir  Elijah  Impey  and 
Mr.  Middleton  ;  you  see  Sir  Elijah  Impey  conveying  to  Mr. 
Middleton  the  alternate  hopes  and  fears  that  agitated  his 
mind  in  this  business  ;  you  see  Hyder  Beg  applying  to  Mr. 
Hastings   and   encouraging   him   to    proceed ;    you    see    him 


218  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

confessing  that  he  has  got  the  curses  and  execration  of  his  country 
for  joining  in  this  act  of  perfidity  and  oppression  against  the 
Nawab  and  his  parents  ;  you  see  the  miserable  state  of  the 
Nawab — wretched,  dejected,  in  a  settled  melancholy  ;  you  see 
him  submitting  at  last  to  his  miserable  doom.  In  the  mean- 
while, the  great  figure  of  the  piece,  not  mixing  in  the  battle, 
but  afar  ofi  aloof  and  listening  to  the  war,  but  not  idle  and 
inactive  as  he  calls  it,  marking  the  whole  of  the  business, 
collected,  firm,  determined.  Then,  when  things  the  most 
tried  begin  to  wince  in  the  proof — when  the  patience  of  the 
Nawab  and  the  conscience  of  Middleton  began  to  fail — when 
things  the  toughest  bend — then  you  see  him,  determined  and 
firm,  casting  a  general's  eye  over  the  scene,  despatching  his 
tough  tool.  Sir  Elijah  Impey,  to  reinforce  the  failing  conscience 
of  Middleton  ;  desiring  Ali  Ibrahim  Khan  to  whet  and  inflame 
the  stouter  villany  of  Hyder  Beg.  You  see  him  present  in 
mind  everywhere,  with  cold,  deliberate,  sober  wrath,  with 
tranquil  veteran  malignity,  guiding  the  fell  array  and  pointing 

to  his  object. 

«  ♦  * 

This  concludes  the  circumstances  as  far  as  relates  to  the 
progress  of  this  business  towards  seizing  the  treasures.  With 
regard  to  the  private  letters  which  I  have  dwelt  so  much  upon, 
I  do  trust  that  your  Lordships  will  not  countenance  a  sort  of 
distinction  which  was  endeavoured  to  be  taken  by  the  learned 
Counsel,  when  first  these  letters  were  produced,  when  they 
requested  your  Lordships  to  remark  that  they  were  letters 
of  a  most  private  and  familiar  nature,  inferring  from  that  that 
they  were  not  to  be  considered  as  testimony  of  equal  authority 
with  the  deliberate  public  letters  which  stand  upon  record. 
I  trust  your  Lordships  will  not  countenance  such  a  distinction. 
I  trust  you  will  not  suffer  them  to  insinuate,  as  Sir  Elijah 
Impey  does  in  his  oral  evidence,  that  it  is  not  fair  to  take 
advantage  of  an  answer  which  he  made  without  adverting  to 
the  consequences.  It  is  because  these  letters  were  written 
without  adverting  to  the  consequences — because  these  letters 
were  written  in  an  unguarded  moment — because  they  were  not 
meant  for  public  view — it  is  therefore  that  I  do  state  them  as 
the  best  authority,  the  weightiest  evidence,  in  the  whole  of 
these  proceedings.  If  the  learned  Counsel  had  another  object 
in  making  that  distinction — because  I  believe  your  Lordships 


SHERIDAN  219 

will  recollect  something  of  a  remarkable  circumstance  in  their 
compelling  us  to  read  certain  private  and  domestic  parts  of 
these  letters  which  we  wish  undoubtedly  to  avoid — if  their 
object  was  to  bring  out  an  anecdote  which  is  now  under  my 
eye,  respecting  the  paternal  tenderness  and  affection  of  the 
accomplice,  Mr.  Middleton,  to  his  son,  who  was  then  ill — if 
they  conceive  that  that  would  be  a  kind  of  reconciling  and 
palliating  circumstance  to  your  Lordships — I  must  say,  though 
it  may  perhaps  be  thought  something  harsh,  that  the  effect 
upon  my  mind  was  directly  the  contrary.  I  must  speak  what 
I  feel  on  this  occasion.  I  must  then  ask  your  Lordships, 
seeing  this  family  anecdote  in  the  light  which  I  do,  what  must 
be  the  nature  of  these  crimes,  into  which  the  loveliest  energies 
of  the  human  mind  cannot  intrude  without  exciting  sensations 
rather  of  disgust  and  contempt  than  of  respect  ? 

I  know  that  I  am  speaking  before  those  who  understand 
what  the  feelings  of  fathers  are.  I  trust  I  am  not  to  learn  them  : 
but,  my  Lords,  I  say  this  aggravates  what  I  consider  as 
Mr.  Middleton's  guilt  in  this  business  ;  because  it  convinces 
me  that  his  mind  was  not  without  circumstances  to  show  him 
the  sacredness  of  those  ties  which  he  was  violating  ;  because 
it  shows  me  that  he  did  not  want  opportunities  of  those  duties 
which  he  was  tearing  from  the  bosom  of  another — that  he  could 
look  in  his  child's  face  and  read  nothing  there  to  warn  him 
from  the  guilt  he  was  engaged  in.  Good  God  !  my  Lords, 
what  a  cause  is  this  we  are  maintaining  !  What  !  when  I 
feel  it  a  part  of  my  duty,  as  it  were,  when  I  feel  it  an  instruc- 
tion in  my  brief  to  support  the  claim  of  age  to  reverence,  of 
maternal  feebleness  to  filial  protection  and  support,  can  I 
recollect  where  I  stand  ?  can  I  recollect  before  whom  I  am 
pleading  ?  I  look  round  on  this  various  assembly  that  sur- 
rounds me,  seeing  in  every  countenance  a  breathing  testimony 
to  this  general  principle,  and  yet  for  a  moment  think  it  neces- 
sary to  enforce  the  bitter  aggravation  which  attends  the  crimes 
of  those  who  violate  this  universal  duty.  Yet,  my  Lords, 
such  is  the  nature  of  the  charge  which  we  maintain — such  the 
monstrous  nature  of  the  guilt  which  we  arraign — and  such  the 
more  monstrous  nature  of  the  defence  opposed  to  that  guilt — 
that  when  I  see  in  many  of  these  letters  the  infirmities  of  age 
made  a  subject  of  mockery  and  ridicule — when  I  see  the  feelings 
of  a  son  treated  by  Mr.  Middleton  as  puerile  (as  he  calls  them) 


220  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

and  contemptible — when  I  see  an  order  given  from  Mr.  Hastings 
to  harden  that  son's  heart,  to  choke  the  struggUng  nature  in 
his  bosom — when  I  see  them  pointing  to  the  son's  name  and 
to  his  standard,  when  they  march  to  oppress  the  mother,  as 
to  a  banner  that  gives  dignity,  that  gives  an  holy  sanction  and 
a  reverence,  to  their  enterprise — when  I  see  and  hear  these 
things  done — when  I  hear  them  brought  into  three  deliberate 
Defences  offered  to  the  charges  of  the  Commons — my  Lords, 
I  own  I  grow  puzzled  and  confounded,  and  almost  doubt 
whether  where  such  a  defence  can  be  offered  it  may  not  be 
tolerated. 

And  yet,  my  Lords,  how  can  I  support  the  claim  of  filial 
love  by  argument,  much  less  the  affection  of  a  son  to  a  mother, 
where  love  loses  its  awe,  and  veneration  is  mixed  with  tender- 
ness ?  What  can  I  say  upon  such  a  subject  ?  What  can  I 
do  but  repeat  the  ready  truths  which  with  the  quick  impulse 
of  the  mind  must  spring  to  the  lips  of  every  man  on  such  a 
theme  ?  Filial  love — the  morality,  the  instinct,  the  sacrament, 
of  nature — a  duty,  or  rather  let  me  say  that  it  is  miscalled  a 
duty,  for  it  flows  from  the  heart  without  effort — its  delight — 
its  indulgence — its  enjoyment.  It  is  guided  not  by  the  slow 
dictates  of  reason  ;  it  awaits  not  encouragement  from  reflec- 
tion or  from  thought ;  it  asks  no  aid  of  memory  ;  it  is  an  innate 
but  active  consciousness  of  having  been  the  object  of  a  thousand 
tender  solicitudes,  a  thousand  waking,  watchful  cares,  of  meek 
anxiety  and  patient  sacrifices,  unremarked  and  unrequited 
by  the  object.  It  is  a  gratitude  founded  upon  a  conviction 
of  obligations  not  remembered,  but  the  more  binding  because 
not  remembered,  because  conferred  before  the  tender  reason 
could  acknowledge  or  the  infant  memory  record  them  —  a 
gratitude  and  affection  which  no  circumstances  should  subdue 
and  which  few  can  strengthen — a  gratitude  [in]  which  even 
injury  from  the  object,  though  it  may  blend  regret,  should 
never  breed  resentment — an  affection  which  can  be  increased 
only  by  the  decay  of  those  to  whom  we  owe  it — then  most 
fervent  when  the  tremulous  voice  of  age,  resistless  in  its 
feebleness,  inquires  for  the  natural  protectors  of  its  cold 
decline. 

If  these  are  the  general  sentiments  of  man,  what  must  be 
their  depravity,  what  must  be  their  degeneracy,  who  can  blot 
out  and  erase  from  the  bosom  the  virtue  that  is  deepest  rooted 


SHERIDAN  221 

in  the  human  heart,  and  twined  within  the  cords  of  hfe  itself — 
alien  from  nature — apostates  from  humanity  !  And  yet,  if 
there  is  a  crime  more  fell — more  foul — if  there  is  anything  worse 
than  a  wilful  persecutor  of  his  mother — it  is  to  see  a  dehberate, 
reasoning,  instigator  and  abettor  to  the  deed.  This  is  a  thing 
that  shocks,  disgusts  and  appals  the  mind  more  than  the  other. 
To  view — not  a  wilful  parricide — to  see  a  parricide  by  com- 
pulsion— a  miserable  wretch,  not  actuated  by  the  stubborn 
evils  of  his  own  worthless  heart — not  driven  by  the  fury  of  his 
own  distracted  brain — but  lending  his  sacrilegeous  hand, 
without  malice  of  his  own,  to  answer  the  abandoned  purposes 
of  the  human  fiends  that  have  subdued  his  will.  To  con- 
demn crimes  like  these  we  need  not  talk  of  laws  or  of  human 
rules.  Their  foulness — their  deformity — does  not  depend 
upon  local  constitutions,  upon  human  institutes  or  reUgious 
creeds.  They  are  crimes  ;  and  the  persons  who  perpetrate 
them  are  monsters  who  violate  the  primitive  condition  upon 
which  the  earth  was  given  to  man.     They  are  guilty  by  the 

general  verdict  of  human  kind. 

*  *  * 

Now  your  Lordships  will  mark  what  Mr.  Hastings  does. 
Mr.  Bristow  determines  to  adopt  lenient  measures.  He 
accordingly  orders  the  eunuchs  to  be  released.  He  writes 
word  of  this  to  Mr.  Hastings.  Mr.  Hastings  receives  his  letter 
and  withholds  it  from  the  [council] .  That  is  the  letter  we  had 
such  a  battle  about,  your  Lordships  recollect,  with  the  Counsel, 
when  they  wanted  us  to  read  another  letter  that  was  nothing 
to  the  purpose.  He  withholds  that  letter,  and  then  gets  the 
Board  to  write  to  know  what  had  been  done  with  respect  to 
the  Begums.  After  he  had  heard  a  detail  of  all  the  severities 
— of  all  the  cruelties  ;  after  he  had  not  only  had  this  communi- 
cated to  him,  but  had  heard  from  the  best  authority  that 
nothing  but  lenient  proceedings  would  do,  he  suppresses  the 
information  that  the  Begums'  ministers  were  released,  and 
gets  the  Board  to  give  a  new  order  to  recommence  severities, 
which  he  had  already  been  apprised  were  not  equal  to  the 
object.  This  is  the  man  that  had  never  any  information  upon 
the  subject  until  after  his  arrival  in  England  ! 

If  anything  more  was  wanted  upon  the  subject — the  Direc- 
tors here  order  an  inquiry.  By  suppressing  that  inquiry 
while  Mr.  Middleton  and  Mr.  Johnson  were  upon  the  spot,  he 


222  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

avoided  an  opportunity  of  gaining  fuller  information,  if  he 
wanted  fuller  information,  upon  that  subject.  To  crown  the 
whole,  he  hears  them  narrated,  in  our  charges  ;  he  hears 
Mr.  Middleton's  explanation  upon  them,  he  hears  them  [and 
says]  deliberately  : — 

'*  I  won't  say  they  are  mine,  but  they  are  just,  honourable, 
humane,  and  politic." 

This  crowns  the  whole  ;  this  shows  the  monstrous  falsity  upon 
which  the  whole  of  his  Defence  is  founded.  I  have  proved  the 
falsity  of  the  assertion  ;  that  he  knew,  not  only  the  outline, 
but  the  detail ;  that,  knowing  it,  he  approved  it ;  that  he 
defended  it  as  just,  politic  and  honourable.  And  am  I  now 
to  be  told,  when  I  have  brought  such  proof  before  your  Lord- 
ships, that  when  he  gives  an  agent  authority  to  awe,  to  force, 
to  compel,  to  kill — when  he  inflames  and  pronounces  dreadful 
responsibility — when  he  has  communications  of  it,  he  says, — 

"  I  am  happy  to  hear  of  it,  and  shall  return  with  delighted 

mind  to  Calcutta  "  : — 

when  he  afterwards  makes  a  charge  against  his  agent  that  he 

was  not  cruel  enough — when  he  finally  calls  all  the  measures 

just,  humane  and  politic — am  I  then  to  be  told  that  he  is  not 

responsible,  because  I  cannot  prove  that  he  ordered  the  number 

of  lashes  or  the  weights  of  the  irons  ?     Shall  I  be  told  he  was 

not  the  cause  this  noble  tree  was  felled,  because  he  ordered 

them  to  lay  an  axe  to  the  root  but  did  not  bid  them  tear  the 

bark — because  he  ordered  them  to  tear  out  the  heart  but  did 

not  order  a  drop  of  blood  to  be  shed  ?     My  Lords,  he  is  as  much 

responsible  as  if  he  had  himself  exercised  these  orders  ;    as 

much  as  if  he  had  executed  that  threat ;  as  much  as  if  he  had 

stooped  to  the  gaoler's  office  and  fastened  the  irons  on  the 

swollen  feet  of  the  ministers  ;    as  much  as  if  he  had  torn  the 

bread  from  the  children's  mouths ;  as  much  as  if  he  had  searched 

the  zenana  and  examined  the  doolahs.     I  say  I  have  brought 

home  these  crimes  and  laid  them  full  upon  Warren  Hastings 

at  your  bar — that  he  is  answerable  for  them  to  law,  to  equity, 

to  his  country  and  to  his  God. 

*  *  * 

I  think  so  far  I  shall  have  vindicated  the  Council,  for  they 
were  wholly  imposed  upon  ;  and  it  is  this  circumstance  of 
deliberation  and  conciousness  of  his  guilt — it  is  this  that  in- 
flames the  minds  of  those  who  watch  his  transactions.     They 


SHERIDAN  223 

root  out  all  pity  almost  for  persons  who  can  act  under  such  an 
influence.  We  have  an  impression  of  such  tyrants  as  Caligula 
and  Nero,  that,  having  been  bred  up  to  tyranny  and  oppression, 
having  had  no  equals  to  control  them,  no  moment  for  reflection, 
we  conceive  that  if  it  could  have  been  possible  to  seize  the 
guilty  profligates  for  a  moment  you  might  bring  conviction 
to  their  hearts  and  repentance  to  their  mind.  But  when  you 
see  a  cool,  reasoning,  deliberate  tyrant — one  who  was  not  bom 
and  bred  to  an  arrogant,  fell  despotism  ;  who  has  been  nursed 
in  a  mercantile  line  ;  who  has  been  used  to  look  round  among 
his  fellow-subjects,  to  transact  with  his  equals,  to  account  for 
his  conduct  to  his  masters,  and,  by  that  wise  system  of  the 
Company,  to  detail  all  his  transactions  ;  who  never  could  fly 
one  moment  from  himself,  but  must  be  obliged  every  night  to 
sit  down  and  hold  up  a  glass  to  his  own  soul — could  never  be 
blind  to  his  deformity,  and  who  must  have  brought  his  con- 
science not  only  to  connive  but  to  approve  of  it — this  dis- 
tinguishes it  from  the  worst  cruelties,  the  worst  enormities, 
we  read  of — of  those  who,  bom  to  tyranny,  who,  finding  no 
superior,  no  adviser,  have  gone  to  the  rash  presumption  that 
there  were  none  above  to  control  them  hereafter.  This  is  a 
circumstance  that  aggravates  the  whole  of  the  guilt  of  the 

unfortunate  gentleman  we  are  now  arraigning  at  your  bar. 
*  *  * 

Here  the  Counsel  choose  we  should  read  a  minute  of  Sir 
John  Macpherson.  Why  they  should  I  am  at  a  loss  to  deter- 
mine ;  only  that  I  see  something  I  regret  in  this  minute,  and 
something  that  I  should  not  have  expected  from  the  good 
sense  of  Sir  John  Macpherson,  because  he  seems  to  have  been 
convinced  by  this  bold,  bombastical,  quibble,  which  I  should 
have  thought  he  would  have  laughed  at  to  Mr.  Hastings'  face. 
He  answers,  "  The  majesty  of  justice  ought  certainly  to  be 
met  with  soHcitation,  and  should  not  descend  to  provoke  or 
invite  it."  That  is  very  true,  he  is  convinced,  when  he  hears 
this  character  of  justice.  Was  it  in  tenderness  to  Sir  John 
Macpherson  they  wished  us  to  read  this  ?  What  does  it  prove  ? 
It  proves  nothing  but  that  he  had  something  of  an  oriental 
style  ;  that  he  had  not  learned  his  ideas  of  the  sublime  and 
beautiful  in  writing  from  the  immortal  leader  of  the  present 
prosecution.  Upon  the  strength  of  this  the  inquiry  is  stifled 
and  crushed  :  and  this  Mr.  Hastings  denies  to  be  stifling  the 


224  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

inquiry.  This  he  says  was  not  checking  an  inquiry — not 
dreading  the  result  of  an  investigation.  What  Sir  John 
Macpherson's  opinion  of  this  majesty  of  justice  was  is  httle 
to  me.  I  will  ask  your  Lordships — do  your  Lordships  approve 
this  representation  ?  Do  you  feel  that  this  is  the  true  image 
of  justice  ?  Is  this  the  character  of  British  justice  ?  Are 
these  her  features  ?  Is  this  her  countenance  ?  Is  this  her 
gait  or  her  mien  ?  No  :  I  think  even  now  I  hear  you  calling 
upon  me  to  turn  from  this  vile  libel — this  base  caricature — 
this  Indian  pagod  [?] — this  vile  [idol  ?]  hewn  from  some  rock — 
blasted  in  some  unhallowed  grove — formed  by  the  hand  of 
guilty  and  knavish  tyranny  to  dupe  the  heart  of  ignorance — 
to  turn  from  this  deformed  idol  to  the  true  majesty  of  justice 
here.  Here,  indeed,  I  see  a  different  form,  enthroned  by  the 
sovereign  hand  of  Freedom,  and  adorned  by  the  hand  of 
[Mercy  ?] — awful  without  severity — commanding  without 
pride — vigilant  and  active  without  restlessness  and  suspicion — 
searching  and  inquisitive  without  meanness  and  debasement — 
not  arrogantly  scorning  to  stoop  when  listening  to  the  voice 
of  afflicted  innocence — and  in  its  loveliest  attitude  when 
bending  to  uplift  its  suppliant  at  its  feet. 

My  Lords,  I  have  closed  the  evidence.  I  have  no  further 
comments.  When  I  have  done  with  the  evidence  I  have  done 
with  everything  that  is  near  my  heart.  It  is  by  the  majesty 
— by  the  form — of  that  justice  that  I  do  conjure  and  implore 
your  Lordships  to  give  your  minds  to  this  great  business. 
That  is  the  only  exhortation  I  have  to  make.  It  is  not  to 
exhort  you  to  decide  with  perfect  clear  conscience — with 
confident  proof  in  your  bosom — without  suffering  the  influ- 
ence of  any  power  upon  earth  to  weigh  with  you — without 
suffering  any  party  or  political  feeling.  It  would  be  presump- 
tion to  warn  you  against  that — I  know  it  cannot  be  the  case. 
But  what  I  exhort  you  to  is,  that  when  you  lay  your  hands 
upon  your  breasts,  you  not  only  cover  that  pure,  sublime  and 
clear,  conscience,  but  that  you  do  cover  a  mind  convinced  by 
a  diligent  application  to  the  evidence  brought  before  you.  It 
is  to  that  I  quote  the  example  of  the  Commons,  to  exhort  your 
Lordships  to  weigh  and  look  into  facts — not  so  much  to  words, 
which  may  be  denied  or  quibbled  away — but  to  look  to  the 
plain  facts — to  weigh  and  consider  the  testimony  in  your  own 
minds.     We  know  the  result  must  be  inevitable.     Let  the  truth 


SHERIDAN  225 

appear,  and  our  cause  is  gained.  It  is  to  this  I  conjure  your 
Lordships,  for  your  own  honour — for  the  honour  of  the  nation — 
for  the  honour  of  human  nature  now  entrusted  to  your  care — 
that  I,  for  the  Commons  of  England  speaking  through  us, 
claim  this  duty  at  your  hands.  They  exhort  you  to  it  by 
everything  that  calls  sublimely  upon  the  heart  of  man — by 
the  majesty  of  that  justice  which  this  bold  man  has  libelled — 
by  the  wide  fame  of  your  own  renowned  tribunal — by  the 
sacred  pledge  by  which  you  swear  in  the  solemn  hour  of  de- 
cision ;  knowing  that  that  decision  will  bring  you  the  greatest 
reward  that  ever  blessed  the  heart  of  man — the  consciousness 
of  having  done  the  greatest  act  of  mercy  for  the  world  that 
the  earth  has  ever  yet  received  from  any  hand  but  Heaven. 
My  Lords.  I  have  done. 

Reply  to  Lord  Mornington,  1794 

Prefatory  Note. — This  speech,  in  which  Sheridan  attacked  the 
Whigs  who  had  joined  Pitt,  is  the  only  one,  says  his  biographer, 
that  he  is  known  to  have  revised. 

In  referring  to  the  details  which  Lord  Mornington  had  entered 
into  of  the  various  atrocities  committed  in  France,  Sheridan 
says  : 

But  what  was  the  sum  of  all  that  he  had  told  the  House  ? 
that  great  and  enormous  enormities  had  been  committed,  at 
which  the  heart  shuddered,  and  which  not  merely  wounded 
every  feeling  of  humanity,  but  disgusted  and  sickened  the 
soul.  All  this  was  most  true  ;  but  what  did  all  this  prove  ? 
What  but  that  eternal  and  unalterable  truth  which  had  always 
presented  itself  to  his  mind,  in  whatever  way  he  had  viewed 
the  subject,  namely  that  a  long-established  despotism  so  far 
degraded  and  debased  human  nature,  as  to  render  its  subjects, 
on  the  first  recovery  of  their  rights,  unfit  for  the  exercise  of 
them.  But  never  had  he,  or  would  he,  meet  but  with  reproba- 
tion that  mode  of  argument  which  went,  in  fact,  to  establish, 
as  an  inference  from  this  truth,  that  those  who  had  been  long 
slaves  ought  therefore  to  remain  so  for  ever  !  No  ;  the  lesson 
ought  to  be,  he  would  again  repeat,  a  tenfold  horror  of  that 
despotic  form  of  government,  which  had  so  profaned  and 
changed  the  nation  of  civilized  men,  and  a  still  more  jealous 
apprehension  of  any  system  tending  to  withhold  the  rights  and 

15— (2170) 


226  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

liberties  of  our  fellow-creatures.  Such  a  form  of  government 
might  be  considered  as  twice  cursed  ;  while  it  existed  it  was 
solely  responsible  for  the  miseries  and  calamities  of  its  subjects  ; 
and  should  a  day  of  retribution  come,  and  the  tyranny  be 
destroyed,  it  was  equally  to  be  charged  with  all  the  enormities 
which  the  folly  or  frenzy  of  those  who  overturned  it  should 
commit. 

But  the  madness  of  the  French  people  was  not  confined  to 
their  proceedings  within  their  own  country  ;  we,  and  all  the 
Powers  of  Europe,  had  to  dread  it.  True  ;  but  was  not  this 
also  to  be  accounted  for  ?  Wild  and  unsettled  as  their  state  of 
mind  was,  necessarily,  upon  the  events  which  had  thrown 
such  power  so  suddenly  into  their  hands,  the  surrounding 
States  had  goaded  them  into  a  still  more  savage  state  of  mad- 
ness, fury,  and  desperation.  We  had  unsettled  their  reason, 
and  then  reviled  their  insanity  ;  we  drove  them  to  the  extremi- 
ties that  produced  the  evils  we  arraigned ;  we  baited  them 
like  wild  beasts,  until  at  length  we  made  them  so.  The  con- 
spiracy of  Pilnitz,  and  the  brutal  threats  of  the  Royal  abettors 
of  that  plot  against  the  rights  of  nations  and  of  men,  had  in 
truth,  to  answer  for  all  the  additional  misery,  horrors,  and 
iniquity,  which  had  since  disgraced  and  incensed  humanity. 
Such  has  been  your  conduct  towards  France,  that  you  have 
created  the  passions  which  you  persecute ;  you  mark  a 
nation  to  be  cut  off  from  the  world  ;  you  covenant  for  their 
extermination  ;  you  swear  to  hunt  them  in  their  inmost 
recesses ;  you  load  them  with  every  species  of  execration ;  and 
you  now  come  forth  with  whining  declamations  on  the  horror 
of  their  turning  upon  you  with  the  fury  which  you  inspired. 

♦  4:  4c 

The  noble  Lord  need  not  remind  us  that  there  is  no  great 
danger  of  our  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  making  any  such 
experiment.  I  can  more  easily  fancy  another  sort  of  speech 
for  our  prudent  Minister.  I  can  more  easily  conceive  him 
modestly  comparing  himself  and  his  own  measures  with  the 
character  and  conduct  of  his  rival,  and  saying — "  Do  I  demand 
of  you,  wealthy  citizens,  to  lend  your  hoards  to  government 
without  interest  ?  On  the  contrary,  when  I  shall  come  to 
propose  a  loan,  there  is  not  a  man  of  you  to  whom  I  shall  not 
hold  out  at  least  a  job  in  every  part  of  the  subscription,  and 
an    usurious   profit   upon   every    pound   you   devote   to   the 


SHERIDAN  227 

necessities  of  your  country.  Do  I  demand  of  you,  my  fellow- 
placemen  and  brother-pensioners,  that  you  should  sacrifice 
any  part  of  your  stipends  to  the  public  exigency  ?  On  the 
contrary,  am  I  not  daily  increasing  your  emoluments  and  your 
numbers  in  proportion  as  the  country  becomes  unable  to  pro- 
vide for  you  ?  Do  I  require  of  you,  my  latest  and  most  zealous 
proselytes,  of  you  who  have  come  over  to  me  for  the  special 
purpose  of  supporting  the  war — a  war,  on  the  success  of  which 
you  solemnly  protest  the  salvation  of  Britain,  and  of  civil 
society  itself,  depend — do  I  require  of  you,  that  you  should 
make  a  temporary  sacrifice  in  the  cause  of  human  nature, 
of  the  greater  part  of  your  private  incomes  ?  No,  Gentlemen, 
I  scorn  to  take  advantage  of  the  eagerness  of  your  zeal ;  and 
to  prove  that  I  think  the  sincerity  of  your  attachment  to  me 
needs  no  such  test,  I  will  make  your  interest  co-operate  with 
your  principle  ;  I  will  quarter  many  of  you  on  the  public 
supply,  instead  of  calling  on  you  to  contribute  to  it ;  and, 
while  their  whole  thoughts  are  absorbed  in  patriotic  apprehen- 
sions for  their  country,  I  will  dexterously  force  upon  others  the 

favourite  objects  of  the  vanity  or  ambition  of  their  Hves." 
*  *  * 

Good  God,  sir,  that  he  should  have  thought  it  prudent  to 
have  forced  this  contrast  upon  our  attention  ;  that  he  should 
triumphantly  remind  us  of  everything  that  shame  should 
have  withheld,  and  caution  should  have  buried  in  oblivion ! 
Will  those  who  stood  forth  with  a  parade  of  disinterested 
patriotism,  and  vaunted  of  the  sacrifices  they  had  made, 
and  the  exposed  situation  they  had  chosen,  in  order  the 
better  to  oppose  the  friends  of  Brissot  in  England — will 
they  thank  the  noble  Lord  for  reminding  us  how  soon  these 
lofty  professions  dwindled  into  little  jobbing  pursuits  for 
followers  and  dependants,  as  unfit  to  fill  the  offices  procured 
for  them,  as  the  offices  themselves  were  unfit  to  be  created  ? — 
Will  the  train  of  newly-titled  alarmists,  of  supernumerary 
negotiators,  of  pensioned  paymasters,  agents  and  commis- 
saries, thank  him  for  remarking  to  us  how  profitable  their 
panic  has  been  to  themselves,  and  how  expensive  to  their 
country  ?  What  a  contrast,  indeed,  do  we  exhibit  ! — What 
in  such  an  hour  as  this,  at  a  moment  pregnant  with  the  national 
fate,  when,  pressing  as  the  exigency  may  be,  the  hard  task  of 
squeezing  the  money  from  the  pockets  of  an  impoverished 


228  •    FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

people,  from  the  toil,  the  drudgery  of  the  shivering  poor,  must 
make  the  most  practised  coDector's  heart  ache  while  he  tears 
it  from  them — can  it  be,  that  people  of  high  rank,  and  profes- 
sing high  principles,  that  they  or  their  families  should  seek  to 
thrive  on  the  spoils  of  misery,  and  fatten  on  the  meals  wrested 
from  industrious  poverty  ?  Can  it  be,  that  this  should  be  the 
case  with  the  very  persons,  who  state  the  unprecedented  peril 
of  the  country  as  the  sole  cause  of  their  being  found  in  the  minis- 
terial ranks  ?  The  Constitution  is  in  danger,  religion  is  in 
danger,  the  very  existence  of  the  nation  itself  is  endangered  ; 
all  personal  and  party  considerations  ought  to  vanish  ;  the 
war  must  be  supported  by  every  possible  exertion  and  by  every 
possible  sacrifice ;  the  people  must  not  murmur  at  their 
burden,  it  is  for  their  salvation,  their  all  is  at  stake.  The  time 
is  come,  when  all  honest  and  all  disinterested  men  should 
rally  round  the  Throne  as  round  a  standard  ;  for  what  ?  Ye 
honest  and  disinterested  men,  to  receive,  for  your  own  private 
emolument,  a  portion  of  those  very  taxes  wrung  from  the  people, 
on  the  pretence  of  saving  them  from  the  poverty  and  distress 
which  you  say  the  enemy  would  inflict,  but  which  you  take 
care  no  enemy  shall  be  able  to  aggravate.  Oh  !  shame  ! 
shame  !  is  this  a  time  for  selfish  intrigues,  and  the  little  dirty 
traffic  for  lucre  and  emolument  ?  Does  it  suit  the  honour  of  a 
gentleman  to  ask  at  such  a  moment  ?  Does  it  become  the 
honesty  of  a  Minister  to  grant  ?  Is  it  intended  to  confirm  the 
pernicious  doctrine,  so  industriously  propagated  by  many, 
that  all  public  men  are  imposters,  and  that  every  politician 
has  his  price  ?  Or  even  where  there  is  no  principle  in  the  bosom 
why  does  not  prudence  hint  to  the  mercenary  and  the  vain 
to  abstain  a  while  at  least,  and  wait  the  fitting  of  the  times  ? 
Improvident  impatience  !  Nay,  even  from  those  who  seem 
to  have  no  direct  object  of  office  or  profit,  what  is  the  language 
which  their  actions  speak  ?  The  Throne  is  in  danger — **  We 
will  support  the  Throne ;  but  let  us  share  the  smiles  of 
Royalty  "  ; — the  order  of  nobility  is  in  danger — "  I  will  fight 
for  nobility,"  says  the  Viscount,  **  but  my  zeal  would  be  much 
greater  if  I  were  made  an  Earl."  **  Rouse  all  the  Marquis 
within  me,"  exclaims  the  Earl,  **and  the  peerage  never  turned 
forth  a  more  undaunted  champion  in  its  cause  than  I  shall 
prove."  **  Stain  my  green  riband  blue,"  cries  out  the  illustrious 
Knight, "  and  the  fountain  of  honour  will  have  a  fast  and 


SHERIDAN  229 

faithful  servant."  What  are  the  people  to  think  of  our  sin- 
cerity ?  What  credit  are  they  to  give  to  our  professions  ? — Is 
this  system  to  be  persevered  in  ?  Is  there  nothing  that 
whispers  to  the  right  honourable  gentleman  that  the  crisis 
is  too  big,  that  the  times  are  too  gigantic  to  be  valued  by  the 
little  hackneyed  and  every-day  means  of  ordinary  corruption  ? 


HENRY   GRATTAN 

It  is  Grattan's  distinction  to  have  been  the  only  orator  who 
was  equally,  or  almost  equally,  successful  in  both  the  Irish 
and  the  Imperial  Parliaments.  His  most  celebrated  speech 
was  delivered  on  the  13th  of  May,  1805,  in  support  of  Fox's 
motion  for  going  into  committee  on  Catholic  Disabilities.  It 
was  in  that  speech  that,  referring  to  the  Irish  Legislature  of 
1782,  usually  known  as  Grattan's  Parliament,  he  said  "I  sat 
by  her  cradle,  I  followed  her  hearse."  It  is  a  very  powerful 
harangue,  argumentative  as  well  as  rhetorical,  in  the  course 
of  which  he  said  of  Dr.  Duigenan,  "  I  rise  to  rescue  the  Catholics 
from  his  attack,  and  the  Protestants  from  his  defence."  Pitt 
is  well  known  to  have  been  a  great  admirer  of  Grattan's 
speeches,  and  it  is  certainly  remarkable  that  he  should  have 
succeeded  so  well  at  Westminster,  when  the  first  half  of  his 
Parliamentary  life  had  been  spent  in  so  different  an  atmos- 
phere. But  his  eloquence  was  genuine,  and  there  was  states- 
manship as  well  as  eloquence  in  the  expression  of  his  political 
ideas.  He  did  his  best  to  curb  the  Protestant  bigotry  of  the 
Irish  Parliament,  though  himself  a  Protestant,  and  procured 
the  elective  franchise  for  the  Catholics  in  1793.  He  did  not 
live  to  see  their  admission  to  Parliament  in  1829,  when 
Peel  acknowledged  that  their  emancipation  was  largely  due 
to  his  efforrs.  Grattan  always  recognised  facts,  and  there  can 
be  no  doubt  that  he  loyally  accepted  the  Union  against  which 
he  had  fought,  believing  that  it  must  lead  to  the  equal 
treatment  of  the  two  religions. 

Roman  Catholic  Emancipation 

House  of  Commons,  May  ISth,  1805 

The  past  troubles  of  Ireland,  the  rebellion  of  1641,  and  the 
wars  which  followed  I  do  not  wholly  forget,  but  I  only  remember 
them  to  deprecate  the  example  and  renounce  the  animosity. 

230 


GRATTAN  231 

The  penal  code  which  went  before,  and  followed  those  times, 
I  remember  also,  but  only  enough  to  know,  that  the  causes 
and  reasons  for  that  code  have  totally  expired  ;  and  as  on  one 
side  the  Protestant  should  relinquish  his  animosity  on  account 
of  the  rebellions,  so  should  the  Catholics  relinquish  their  ani- 
mosity on  account  of  the  laws.  The  question  is  not  stated  by  the 
member ;  it  is  not  whether  you  will  keep  in  a  state  of  disqualifica- 
tion a  few  Irish  CathoUcs,  but  whether  you  will  keep  in  a  state  of 
languor  and  neutrality  a  fifth  of  the  empire  ;  before  you  impose 
such  a  sentence  on  yourself  you  will  require  better  arguments 
than  those  which  the  member  has  advanced;  he  has  substantially 
told  you  that  the  Irish  CathoKc  Church,  which  is,  in  fact,  more 
independent  than  the  Catholic  Church  here,  is  the  worst  in 
Europe  ;  that  the  Irish  Catholics,  our  own  kindred,  are  the 
worst  of  papists  ;  that  the  distinction,  a  distinction  made  by 
the  law,  propounded  by  ourselves,  and  essential  to  the  State, 
between  temporal  and  spiritual  powder,  is  a  vain  discrimination, 
and  that  the  people  of  Ireland,  to  be  good  Catholics,  must  be 
bad  subjects  :  and  finally,  he  has  emphatically  said,  "  that 
an  Irish  Catholic  never  is,  never  was,  never  will  be,  a  faithful 
subject  to  a  British  Protestant  King  "  :  his  words  are,  "  they 
hate  all  Protestants  and  all  Englishmen."  Thus  has  he 
pronounced  against  his  country  three  curses  :  eternal  war 
with  one  another,  eternal  war  with  England,  and  eternal  peace 
with  France  ;  so  strongly  does  he  inculcate  this,  that  if  a 
Catholic  printer  were,  in  the  time  of  invasion,  to  pubUsh  his 
speech,  that  printer  might  be  indicted  for  treason,  as  the  pub- 
lisher of  a  composition  administering  to  the  Catholics  a  stimu- 
lative to  rise,  and  advancing  the  authority  of  their  religion  for 
rebellion.  His  speech  consists  of  four  parts  : — First,  an  invec- 
tive uttered  against  the  religion  of  the  Catholics  ;  Second,  an 
invective  uttered  against  the  present  generation  ;  Third,  an 
invective  against  the  past  ;  and  the  Fourth,  an  invective 
against  the  future  :  here  the  hmits  of  creation  interposed, 
and  stopped  the  member.  It  is  to  defend  those  different 
generations,  and  their  religion,  I  rise  ;  to  rescue  the  Catholic 
from  his  attack,  and  the  Protestant  from  his  defence. 

The  civil  interference  of  the  Pope,  his  assumed  power  of 
deposition,  together  with  the  supposed  doctrine,  that  no  faith 
was  to  be  kept  with  heretics,  were  the  great  objections  to  the 
claims  of  the  Catholics  ;  to  convict  them,  the  learned  doctor  has 


232  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

gone  forth  with  a  sinister  zeal  to  collect  his  offensive  materials, 
and  behold  he  returns  laden  with  much  disputed  comment, 
much  doubtful  text,  much  of  executive  decrees,  and  of  such 
things  as  are  become  obsolete,  because  useless,  and  are  little 
attended  to,  because  very  dull  and  very  uninteresting,  and 
wherein  the  learned  gentleman  may,  for  that  reason,  take  many 
little  liberties  in  the  way  of  misquotation,  or  in  the  way  of  sup- 
pression ;  all  these,  the  fruits  of  his  unprofitable  industry,  he 
lays  before  you  :  very  kindly  and  liberally  he  does  it,  but  of 
this  huge  and  tremendous  collection,  you  must  reject  a  principal 
part,  as  having  nothing  to  say  to  the  question,  namely,  all  that 
matter  which  belongs  to  the  Court  of  Rome  as  distinct  from 
the  Church  ;  Secondly,  of  the  remnant  after  that  rejection, 
you  must  remove  everything  that  belongs  to  the  Church  of 
Rome  which  is  not  confined  to  doctrine  regarding  faith  and 
morals,  exclusive  of,  and  unmixed  with,  any  temporal  matter 
whatever  ;  after  this  correction,  you  will  have  reduced  this 
gentleman  of  the  fifteenth  century  to  two  miserable  canons, 
the  only  rewards  of  his  labour,  and  result  of  his  toil,  both  passing 
centuries  before  the  Reformation,  and  therefore  not  bearing 
on  the  Protestant  or  the  Reformers  ;  the  first  is  a  canon 
excommunicating  persons  who  do  not  abide  by  a  profession 
of  faith  contained  in  a  preceding  canon,  which  notably  con- 
cludes with  the  following  observation,  that  virgins  and  married 
women  may  make  themselves  agreeable  to  God  ;  now  I  cannot 
think  such  a  canon  can  excite  any  grave  impression  or  alarm 
in  this  House,  passed  six  hundred  years  ago,  three  hundred 
years  before  the  birth  of  the  Reformation,  made  by  lay  princes, 
as  well  as  ecclesiastics,  and  never  acknowledged  or  noticed  in 
these  islands,  even  in  times  of  their  popery.  The  other  canon, 
that  of  Constance,  goes  to  deny  the  force  of  a  free  passport,  or 
safe  conduct  to  heretics,  given  by  temporal  princes  in  bar  of 
the  proceedings  of  the  Church.  Without  going  farther  into 
that  canon,  it  is  sufficient  to  say,  that  it  is  positively  affirmed 
by  the  Catholics,  that  this  does  not  go  farther  than  to  assert 
the  power  of  the  Church  to  inquire  into  heresy,  notwithstanding 
any  impediments  by  lay  princes  ;  and  farther,  there  is  an 
authority  for  that  interpretation,  and  in  contradiction  to  the 
member's  interpretation,  not  only  above  his  authority,  but 
any  that  it  is  in  his  studies  to  produce  :  I  mean,  that  of  Grotius, 
who   mentions   that   the    imputation   cast    on   the   Catholics 


GRATTAN  233 

on  account  of  this  canon  is  unfounded.  Here  I  stop,  and 
submit,  that  the  member  is  in  the  state  of  a  plaintiff,  who 
cannot  make  out  his  case,  notwithstanding  his  two  canons  ; 
that  he  has  failed  most  egregiously,  and  has  no  right  to  throw 
the  other  party  on  their  defence  ;  however,  the  CathoUcs  have 
gone  as  far  as  relates  to  him  gratuitously  into  their  case, 
and  have  not  availed  themselves  of  the  imbecility  of  their 
opponents,  and  they  have  been  enabled  to  produce  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  above  charges,  the  opinion  of  six  universities,  to 
whom  those  charges,  in  the  shape  of  queries,  have  been  sub- 
mitted :  Paris,  Louvaine,  Salamanca,  Douey,  Valladolid, 
Alcala.  These  universities  have  all  answered,  and  have,  in 
their  answers,  not  only  disclaimed  the  imputed  doctrines, 
but  disclaimed  them  with  abhorrence.  The  Catholics  have 
not  stopped  here  ;  they  have  drawTi  up  a  declaration  of  nine 
articles,  renouncing  the  imputed  doctrines,  together  with 
other  doctrines,  or  views  objected  to  by  them  ;  they  have  gone 
farther,  they  have  desired  the  Protestants  to  name  their  own 
terms  of  abjuration  :  the  Protestants  have  done  so,  and  here 
is  the  instrument  of  their  compact — it  is  an  oath  framed  by  a 
Protestant  Parliament,  principally  manufactured  by  the 
honourable  member  himself,  in  which  the  Irish  Catholics  not 
only  abjure  the  imputed  doctrine,  but  are  sworn  to  the  State, 
and  to  the  present  estabhshment  of  the  Protestant  Church  in 
Ireland,  and  to  the  present  state  of  Protestant  property  ;  this 
oath  has  been  universally  taken,  and  by  this  oath,  both  parties 
are  concluded,  the  Catholics  from  resorting  to  the  abjured  doc- 
trines, and  the  Protestant  from  resorting  to  the  abjured  charge  ; 
therefore  when  the  member  imputes,  as  he  has  done,  to  the 
Catholic,  the  principles  hereby  abjured,  it  is  not  the  Catholic 
who  breaks  faith  with  him,  but  it  is  he  who  breaks  faith  with 
the  Catholic.  He  acts  in  violation  of  the  instrument  he  him- 
self formed,  and  is  put  down  by  his  owti  authority  ;  but  the 
Catholics  have  not  only  thus  obtained  a  special  acquittal  from 
the  charges  made  against  them  in  this  debate,  they  have 
obtained  a  general  acquittal  also. 

The  most  powerful  of  their  opponents,  the  late  Earl  of 
Clare,  writes  as  follows  :  "  They  who  adhere  to  the  Church  of 
Rome  are  good  Catholics,  they  who  adhere  to  the  Court  of  Rome 
are  traitors  "  ;  and  he  quotes  Lord  Somers  as  his  authority, 
in   which    he    entirely    acquiesces,     and    acknowledges    their 


234  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

innocence  in  their  adherence  to  the  Church  of  Rome  as  distinct 
from  the  Court ;  a  test,  such  as  I  have  already  mentioned, 
is  formed  in  Ireland,  abjuring  the  doctrine  of  the  Court  of  Rome, 
and  reducing  their  religion  to  the  Church  of  Rome.  This 
test,  together  with  a  number  of  other  articles,  is  reduced  to  an 
oath,  and  this  oath  is  introduced  into  an  Act  of  Parliament, 
and  this  oath,  thus  legalised,  is  taken  universally  ;  here  again 
are  the  opponents  to  the  Catholic,  concluded  by  their  own 
concessions  ;  by  tendering  an  oath  to  Cathohcs,  they  allow 
an  oath  to  be  a  test  of  sincerity  ;  by  framing  that  oath  under 
these  circumstances,  they  make  it  a  test  of  pure  Catholicism  ; 
and  by  their  own  argument,  they  pronounce  pure  Catholicism 
to  be  innoxious  ;  but  the  honourable  member  has  gone  a  little 
farther  than  pronounce  the  innocence  of  the  Catholics  ;  he 
has  pronounced  the  mischievous  consequences  of  the  laws  that 
proscribe  them  ;  he  has  said,  in  so  many  words,  that  an  Irish 
Catholic  never  is,  and  never  will  be,  faithful  to  a  British  Protes- 
tant King  ;  he  does  not  say  every  Catholic,  for  then  he  would 
include  the  English  Catholics  and  those  of  Canada  ;  nor  does 
he  say  every  Irishman  must  hate  the  King,  for  then  he  would 
include  every  Protestant  in  Ireland  ;  the  cause  of  the  hatred  is 
not  then  in  the  religion  nor  in  the  soil ;  it  must  be  then  in  the 
laws,  in  something  which  the  Protestant  does  not  experience 
in  Ireland,  nor  the  Catholics  in  any  country  but  in  Ireland, 
that  is  to  say,  in  the  penal  code  ;  that  code  then,  according  to 
him,  has  made  the  Catholics  enemies  to  the  King  ;  thus  has  he 
acquitted  the  Catholics  and  convicted  the  laws.  This  is  not 
extraordinary,  it  is  the  natural  progress  of  a  blind  and  a  great 
polemic  ;  such  characters,  they  begin  with  a  fatal  candour, 
and  then  precipitate  to  a  fatal  extravagance  :  and  are  at 
once  undermined  by  their  candour  and  exposed  by  their  extrav- 
agance :  so  with  the  member,  he  hurries  on,  he  knows  not 
where,  utters,  he  cares  not  what,  equally  negligent  of  the 
grounds  of  his  assertions  and  their  necessary  inferences  ;  thus, 
when  he  thinks  he  is  establishing  his  errors,  unconsciously  and 
unintentionally  he  promulgates  truth,  or  rather,  in  the  very 
tempest  of  his  speech.  Providence  seems  to  govern  his  lips,  so 
that  they  shall  prove  false  to  his  purposes,  and  bear  witness 
to  his  refutations  ;  interpret  the  gentleman  literally,  what 
blasphemy  has  he  uttered  ?  He  has  said,  that  the  Catholic 
religion,  abstracted  as  it  is  at  present  in  Ireland  from  Popery, 


GRATTAN  235 

and  reduced  as  it  is  to  mere  Catholicism,  is  so  inconsistent 
with  the  duties  of  morahty  and  allegiance,  as  to  be  a  very  great 
evil.  Now,  that  religion  is  the  Christianity  of  two-thirds  of 
all  Christendom ;  it  follows,  then,  according  to  the  learned 
doctor,  that  the  Christian  religion  is  in  general  a  curse  :  he 
has  added,  that  his  own  countrymen  are  not  only  depraved 
by  religion,  but  rendered  perverse  by  nativity  ;  that  is  to  say, 
according  to  him,  blasted  by  their  Creator,  and  damned  by 
their  Redeemer.  In  order,  therefore,  to  restore  the  member 
to  the  character  of  a  Christian,  we  must  renounce  him  as  an 
advocate,  and  acknowledge  that  he  has  acquitted  the  Catholics 
whom  he  meant  to  condemn,  and  convicted  the  laws  which  he 
meant  to  defend.  But  though  the  truth  may  be  eviscerated 
from  the  whole  of  the  member's  statement,  it  is  not  to  be 
discerned  in  the  particular  parts,  and  therefore  it  is  not  sufficient 
to  refute  his  arguments  ;  'tis  necessary  to  controvert  his  posi- 
tions— the  Catholics  of  Ireland,  he  says,  hate  the  Protestants, 
hate  the  English,  and  hate  the  King.  I  must  protest  against 
the  truth  of  this  position  ;  the  laws,  violent  as  they  were, 
mitigated  as  for  the  last  seventeen  years  they  have  been,  the 
people,  better  than  the  laws,  never  could  have  produced  that 
mischief  :  against  such  a  position  I  appeal  to  the  conscious 
persuasion  of  every  Irishman.  We  wiU  put  it  to  an  issue  : 
the  present  chief  Governor  of  Ireland  is  both  an  Englishman 
and  the  representative  of  English  Government.  I  will  ask  the 
honourable  gentleman  whether  the  Irish  hate  him  ?  If  I 
could  believe  this  position,  what  could  I  think  of  the  Protestant 
ascendancy,  and  what  must  I  think  of  the  British  connection 
and  Government,  who  have  been  for  six  hundred  years  in 
possession  of  the  country,  with  no  other  effect,  according  to 
this  logic,  than  to  make  its  inhabitants  abhor  you  and  your 
generation  ;  but  this  position  contains  something  more  than 
a  departure  from  fact  :  it  says,  strike  France,  strike  Spain, 
the  great  body  of  the  Irish  are  with  you  ;  it  does  much  more, 
it  attempts  to  give  the  Irish  a  provocation,  it  teaches  you  to 
hate  them,  and  them  to  think  so,  and  thus  falsehood  takes  its 
chance  of  generating  into  a  fatal  and  treasonable  truth.  The 
honourable  gentleman,  having  misrepresented  the  present 
generation,  mis-states  the  conduct  of  their  ancestors,  and  sets 
forth  the  past  rebellions  as  proceeding  entirely  from  religion. 
I  will  follow  him  to  those  rebelHons,  and  show,  beyond  his 


236  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

power  of  contradiction,  that  religion  was  not,  and  that  pro- 
scription was,  the  leading  cause  of  those  rebellions.  The 
rebellion  of  1741,  or  let  me  be  controverted  by  any  historian  of 
authority,  did  not  proceed  from  religion  ;  it  did  proceed  from 
the  extermination  of  the  inhabitants  of  eight  countries  in 
Ulster,  and  from  the  foreign  and  bigoted  education  of  the 
Catholic  clergy,  and  not  from  religion.  The  rebellion  of  the 
Pale,  for  it  was  totally  distinct  in  period  or  cause  from  the  other, 
did  not  proceed  from  religion  :  loss  of  the  graces  (they  resem- 
bled your  petition  of  right,  except  that  they  embraced  articles 
for  the  security  of  property,)  disarmament  of  the  Catholics, 
expulsion  of  them  in  that  disarmed  state  from  Dublin,  many 
other  causes,  order  for  the  execution  of  certain  priests  ;  you 
will  not  forget  there  was  an  order  to  banish  their  priests  in 
James  the  First's  time,  and  to  shut  up  their  chapels  in  Charles 
the  First's  ;  these  were  the  causes  :  there  was  another  cause — 
you  were  in  rebellion,  Scotland  was  in  rebellion  ;  there  was 
.  another  cause,  the  Irish  Government  was  in  rebellion  ;  they 
had  taken  their  part  with  the  Republicans,  and  wished  to  draw 
into  treason  the  Irish  freeholders,  that,  with  the  forfeiture 
of  another's  rebellion,  they  might  supply  their  own.  I  go 
back  with  concern  to  these  times,  I  see  much  blood,  no  glory  ; 
but  I  have  the  consolation  to  find,  that  the  causes  were  not 
lodged  in  the  religion  or  the  soil,  and  that  all  of  them,  but  the 
proscriptive  cause,  have  vanished.  I  follow  the  member  to 
another  rebellion,  which  should  properly  be  called  a  civil  war, 
not  a  rebellion  ;  it  proceeded  from  a  combination  of  causes 
which  exist  no  longer,  and  one  of  those  causes  was  the  abdicating 
King  at  the  head  of  the  Catholics  ;  and  another  cause  was  the 
violent  proscription  carried  on  against  the  Catholics  by  the 
opposite  and  then  prevailing  party  :  these  causes  are  now  no 
more,  or  will  the  member  say  there  is  now  an  abdicating  prince, 
or  now  a  Popish  plot,  or  now  a  pretender  ?  These  are  causes 
most  certainly  sufficient  to  alarm  you,  but  very  different,  and 
such  as  can  only  be  combated  by  a  conviction,  that  as  your 
destinies  are  now  disposed  of,  it  is  not  the  power  of  the 
Catholics  which  can  destroy,  or  the  exclusion  of  the  Catholics 
that  can  save  you.  The  conclusion  I  draw  from  the  history 
above  alluded  to,  is  very  different  from  that  drawn  by  the 
member,  and  far  more  healing  ;  conclusion  to  show  the  evils 
arising  from  foreign  connections  on  one  side,  and  from  domestic 


GRATTAN  237 

proscription  on  the  other.  If  all  the  blood  shed  on  those 
occasions,  if  the  many  fights  in  the  first,  and  the  signal  battles 
in  the  second  period,  and  the  consequences  of  those  battles 
to  the  defeated  and  the  triumphant — to  the  slave  that  fled, 
and  to  the  slave  that  followed — shall  teach  our  country  the 
wisdom  of  conciliation,  I  congratulate  her  on  those  deluges 
of  blood  ;  if  not,  I  submit,  and  lament  her  fate,  and  deplore 
her  understanding,  which  would  render  not  only  the  blessings 
of  Providence,  but  its  visitations  fruitless,  and  transmit  what 
was  the  curse  of  our  fathers  as  the  inheritance  of  our  children. 

The  learned  gentleman  proceeds  to  mis-state  a  period  of 
one  hundred  years  ;  namely,  the  century  that  followed  the 
revolutions  ;  and  this  he  makes  a  period  of  open  or  concealed 
rebellions;  the  sources  of  his  darkness  and  misinformation 
are  to  be  found  in  history  and  revelation  :  of  his  charges 
against  that  period  he  brings  no  proof  ;  none  of  those  on  the 
same  side  with  him  can  bring  any  :  they  heard  from  such  a 
one  who  heard  from  such  a  one  :  I  neither  believe  them  nor 
such  a  one,  and  I  desire  so  many  generations  may  not  be  con- 
victed on  evidence  that  would  not  be  admitted  against  the 
vilest  caitiff,  and  that  in  opposition  to  evidence  by  which  that 
vilest  caitiff  would  be  acquitted,  in  opposition  to  the  authority 
of  four  Acts  of  Parliament ;  the  Act  of  1778,  which  declares 
their  loyalty  for  a  long  series  of  years,  that  of  1782,  that  of  1793, 
and  further,  against  the  declared  sense  of  government,  who,  in 
the  year  1762,  proposed  to  raise  four  Catholic  regiments, 
because  the  Catholics  had  proved  their  allegiance  against  the 
authority  of  the  then  Irish  Primate  who  supported  that  measure; 
and  in  his  speech  on  that  subject  assigns,  as  his  reason,  that 
after  his  perusal  of  Mr.  Murray's  papers,  nothing  appeared 
against  the  Irish  Cathohcs  of  any  connection  whatsoever  with 
the  rebelHon  of  that  period.  The  member,  he  proceeds  to  the 
rebellion  of  1798,  and  this  he  charges  to  the  Cathohcs  ;  and 
against  his  charge  I  appeal  to  the  report  of  the  committee  of 
the  Irish  House  of  Commons  in  1797,  in  which  is  set  forth  the 
rebel  muster,  containing  99,000  northerns  enrolled  in  rebellion, 
and  all  the  northern  counties  organized  :  at  the  time  in  which 
the  committee  of  the  House  of  Commons  states  the  rebellion 
of  the  north,  the  despatches  of  government  acknowledged  the 
allegiance  of  the  south  ;  to  those  despatches  I  appeal,  written 
at  the  time  of  Hoche's  projected  invasion,  and  applauding  the 


238  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

attachment  and  loyalty  of  the  southern  counties,  and  their 
exertions  to  assist  the  army  on  its  march  to  Cork,  to  oppose  the 
landing  of  the  French.  If  you  ask  how  the  rebellion  spread 
and  involved  the  Catholics,  I  will  answer,  and  tell  you,  that  as 
long  as  the  proscriptive  system  continues,  there  will  be  in  our 
country  a  staminal  weakness,  rendering  the  distempers  to 
which  society  is  obnoxious,  not  only  dangerous,  but  deadly  ; 
every  epidemic  disease  will  bring  the  chronic  distemper  into 
action  ;  it  is  the  grape-stone  in  the  hand  of  death  which  strikes 
with  the  force  of  a  thunderbolt.  If  you  have  any  apprehension 
on  this  account,  the  error  is  to  be  found  in  yourselves,  in  human 
pohcy,  not  in  religion  ;  in  the  fallibihty  of  man,  not  of  God. 
If  you  wish  to  strip  rebellion  of  its  hopes,  France  of  her  expecta- 
tions, reform  that  policy  ;  you  will  gain  a  victory  over  the 
enemy,  when  you  gain  a  conquest  over  yourselves.  But  I 
will  for  a  moment  accede  to  the  member's  statement  against 
facts  and  history  :  what  is  his  inference  ?  During  one  hundred 
years  of  the  proscriptive  system,  the  State  has  been  in  imminent 
danger  ;  therefore,  adds  he,  continue  the  system,  here  is  the 
regimen  under  which  you  have  declined — persevere  :  but  the 
member  proceeds  to  observe,  that  you  cannot  hope  to  reconcile 
whom  you  cannot  hope  to  satisfy,  and  he  instances  the  repeal 
of  the  penal  code.  I  deny  the  instances  :  the  repeal  in  1778 
and  1782  did  reconcile  and  did  satisfy  ;  accordingly  you  will 
find,  that  the  Irish  Cathohcs  in  1779  and  1780,  1781  and  1782, 
were  active  and  unanimous  to  repel  the  invasion  threatened 
at  that  time,  when  the  French  rode  in  the  Channel,  and  Ireland 
was  left  to  the  care  of  6,000  regulars,  and  was  only  defended 
from  invasion  by  the  spirit  and  loyalty  of  the  Catholics,  in 
harmony  and  in  arms  with  their  Protestant  brethren.  The 
repeal  of  a  principal  part  of  the  penal  code  in  1793  did  not 
reconcile,  and  did  not  satisfy ;  it  was,  because  the  Irish 
government  of  that  time  was  an  enemy  to  the  repeal  and  to  the 
Catholics,  and  prevented  the  good  effects  of  that  measure. 
That  government,  in  the  summer  of  1792,  had  sent  instructions 
(I  know  the  fact  to  be  so)  to  the  grand  juries  to  enter  into 
resolutions  against  the  claims  of  the  Cathohcs.  Their  leading 
minister  appeared  himself  at  one  of  the  county  meetings,  and 
took  a  memorable  part  of  hostility  and  publicity.  When  the 
petition  of  the  Catholics  was  recommended  in  the  King's 
speech  in  1793,  the  Irish  minister  answers  the  King,  and  with 


GRATTAN  239 

unmeasured  severity  attacked  the  petitioners.  When  the  bill, 
introduced  in  consequence  of  his  Majesty's  recommendation, 
was  in  progress,  the  same  minister,  with  an  unmeasured 
severity,  attacked  the  bill  and  repeated  his  severity  against 
the  persons  of  the  Catholics.  When  the  same  bill  of  reconcili- 
ation, in  consequence  of  the  recommendation  and  reference  of 
the  petition,  was  in  its  passage,  the  Irish  government  attempted 
to  hang  the  leading  men  among  the  petitioners,  and  accordingly 
Mr.  Bird  and  Mr.  Hamilton  were,  by  their  orders,  indicted 
for  a  capital  offence,  I  think  it  was  Defenderism  ;  and  so  Uttle 
ground  was  there  for  the  charge,  that  those  men  were  trium- 
phantly acquitted,  and  the  witnesses  of  the  Crown  so  flagrantly 
perjured,  that  the  judge,  I  have  heard,  recommended  a  prose- 
cution. These  were  the  causes  why  the  repeal  of  1793  did  not 
satisfy  ;  and  in  addition  to  these,  because  the  Irish  adminis- 
tration took  care  that  the  CathoUcs  should  receive  no  benefit 
therefrom,  opposing  them  with  their  known  partizans  and 
dependants,  seldom  giving  them  any  office  (there  are  very 
few  instances  in  which  they  got  any),  and  manifesting  in  the 
government  a  more  active  enemy  than  before  the  Catholic 
had  experienced  in  the  law.  I  refer  to  the  speeches  delivered 
and  published  at  the  time  by  the  ministers  and  servants  of 
the  Irish  government,  and  persisted  in,  and  delivered  since  ; 
read  them,  and  there  you  will  see  an  attack  on  aU  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  Irish  people  ;  from  the  time  of  their  address  for 
free  trade,  all  their  proceedings,  such  as  were  glorious,  as  well 
as  those  that  were  intemperate,  without  discrimination, 
moderation,  or  principle  ;  there  you  will  see  the  Irish  ministry 
engaged  in  a  wretched  squabble  with  the  Catholic  committee, 
and  that  Catholic  committee  replying  on  that  ministry,  and 
degrading  that  ministry  more  than  it  had  degraded  itself  ; 
and  you  will  further  perceive  the  members  of  that  ministry 
urging  their  charges  against  the  members  of  that  committee, 
to  disqualify  other  Catholics  who  were  not  of  the  committee, 
but  opposed  to  it ;  so  that  by  their  measures  against  the  one 
part  of  the  Catholics,  and  their  invective  against  the  other, 
they  take  care  to  alienate,  as  far  as  in  them  lay,  the  whole 
body.  The  fact  is,  the  project  of  conciliation  in  1793,  recom- 
mended in  the  speech  from  the  throne,  was  defeated  by  the 
Irish  cabinet,  who  were  at  that  time  on  that  subject  in  opposi- 
tion ;   and    being    incensed    at    the    British    cabinet    for   the 


240  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

countenance  afforded  to  the  Catholics,  punished  the  latter, 
and  sowed  those  seeds  which  afterwards,  in  conjunction  with 
other  causes,  produced  the  rebellion. 

I  leave  the  member,  and  proceed  to  discuss  the  differences 
now  remaining  that  discriminate  his  Majesty's  subjects  of  the 
Protestant  and  Catholic  persuasion.  Before  we  consider  how 
far  we  differ,  it  is  necessary  to  examine  how  far  we  agree  ; 
we  acknowledge  the  same  God,  the  same  Redeemer,  the  same 
consequences  of  redemption,  the  same  Bible,  and  the  same 
Testament.  Agreeing  in  this,  we  cannot,  as  far  as  respects 
religion,  quarrel  about  the  remainder  ;  because  their  merits  as 
Christians  must,  in  our  opinion,  outweigh  their  demerits  as 
Catholics,  and  reduce  our  religious  distinctions  to  a  difference 
about  the  Eucharist,  the  mass,  and  the  Virgin  Mary  ;  matters 
which  may  form  a  difference  of  opinion,  but  not  a  division  of 
interest.  The  infidel,  under  these  circumstances,  would  con- 
sider us  as  the  same  religionists,  just  as  the  French  would 
consider  us,  and  cut  us  down  as  the  same  community.  See 
whether  we  are  not  agreed  a  little  farther,  and  united  by 
statute  as  well  as  religion  ;  the  preamble  of  three  Acts  declare 
the  Catholics  to  be  loyal  subjects  ;  the  Act  of  1778  declares 
that  they  have  been  so  for  a  series  of  years  ;  the  same  Act 
declares  that  they  should  be  admitted  into  the  blessings  of 
the  constitution  :  the  Act  of  1793  goes  farther,  and  admits 
them  into  a  participation  of  those  blessings  ;  thus  is  the 
principle  of  identification  established  by  the  law  of  the  land, 
and  thus  are  the  Catholics,  by  that  law,  proclaimed  to  be 
innocent,  and  the  calumniators  of  the  Catholics  guilty.  Let 
us  consider  their  situation  under  these  laws,  professedly  and 
in  principle  admitted  to  everything  except  seats  in  Parliament, 
and  certain  offices  of  State  ;  they  are,  in  fact,  excluded  from 
everything,  under  the  circumstances  of  paying  for  everything  : 
(the  few  places  they  enjoy  make  no  exception  :)  they  pay  their 
proportion  of  money  to  the  Navy,  and  contribute  one-third 
to  its  members,  and  have  not  a  commission  ;  they  contribute 
to  the  expenses  of  the  Army,  and  to  one-third  of  its  numbers, 
and  have  not  a  commission  ;  and  shall  I  now  be  asked,  how 
are  the  Catholics  affected  by  this  ?  or  be  told  that  the  Catholic 
body  would  not  be  served  by  the  removal  of  this  ;  how  would 
the  Protestant  body  be  affected,  if  only  removed  from  the 
State,  the  Parliament,  the  Navy,  and  the  Army  ?    In  addition 


GRATTAN  241 

to  this,  I  am  to  add  the  many  minor  injuries  done  to  the 
Catholics,  in  ways  that  must  be  felt,  and  cannot  be  calculated  ; 
the  incalculable  injury  done  to  the  Cathohc  mind,  by  precluding 
it  from  objects  of  ambition,  and  to  the  CathoUc  spirit,  by 
exposing  it  to  taunts  and  insults — you  cannot  be  at  a  loss  for  an 
instance,  such  as  is  uttered  by  the  vilest  of  the  Protestants 
against  the  first  of  the  Catholics.  I  am  to  add  the  mischief 
done  to  the  morals  of  this  country,  by  setting  up  a  false  standard 
of  merit,  by  which  men,  without  rehgion,  morals,  or  integrity, 
shall  obtain,  by  an  abhorrence  of  their  fellow-subjects,  crecfit 
and  consequence,  and  acquire  an  impunity  for  selling  the  whole 
community,  because  they  detest  a  part  of  it.  You  see  it  is 
impossible  for  any  one  part  of  the  society  to  afflict  the  other 
without  paying  the  penalty,  and  feeUng  the  consequences  of 
its  own  bad  policy  in  the  reaction  of  its  own  bad  passions. 
I  am  to  add  that  mischief  done  to  the  peace  of  the  country 
among  the  lower  orders,  when  the  spirit  of  reUgious  discord 
descends,  and  the  holiday  becomes  a  riot,  and  the  petty  magis- 
trate turns  chapman  and  dealer  in  politics,  theologian  and 
robber,  makes  for  himself  a  situation  in  the  country,  by  mon- 
strous lies,  fabricates  false  panics  of  insurrection  and  invasion, 
then  walks  forth  the  man  of  blood  ;  his  creditors  tremble  ; 
the  French  do  not ;  and  atrocities,  which  he  dare  not  commit 
in  his  o\\Ti  name,  perpetrates  for  the  honour  of  his  King,  and 
in  the  name  of  his  Maker.  I  have  heard  of  the  incivilization 
of  Ireland  ;  too  much  has  been  said  on  that  subject :  I  deny 
the  fact :  a  country  exporting  above  five  millions,  even  at 
your  official  value,  above  half  a  million  of  com,  three  millions 
of  linen,  paying  nine  millions  to  the  State,  cannot  be  barbarous  ; 
a  nation  connected  with  you  for  six  hundred  years  (what  do 
you  say  ?)  cannot  be  barbarous.  If  France  should  say  so,  you 
should  contradict  her,  because  it  is  not  on  Ireland,  but  on  you 
the  reflection  must  fall ;  but  if  anything,  however,  delays  the 
perfect  and  extensive  civilization  of  Ireland,  it  is  principally 
her  religious  animosity  ;  examine  all  the  causes  of  human 
misery,  the  tragic  machinery  of  the  globe,  and  the  instruments 
of  civil  rage  and  domestic  murder,  and  you  wiU  find  no  demon 
is  like  it,  because  it  privileges  every  other  vice,  and  amalga- 
mates with  infidelity,  as  well  as  with  murder  ;  and  conscience, 
which  restrains  other  vices,  becomes  a  prompter  here.  To 
restrain  this  waste,  and  this  conquest,  exercised  over  your 

1 6 — (2170) 


242  FAMOUS  SPEFXHES 

understanding,  your  morals,  and  your  fortune,  my  honourable 
friend  makes  his  motion.  Come,  let  us  hear  the  objections  : 
the  Catholics,  they  say,  should  not  have  poHtical  power  : 
why,  they  have  it  already  ;  they  got  it  when  you  gave  them 
landed  property,  and  they  got  it  when  you  gave  them  the 
elective  franchise.  '*  Be  it  enacted,  that  the  CathoHcs  shall 
be  capable  of  holding  all  offices  (civil  and  military,  except  ") 
and  then  the  Act  excludes  a  certain  numeration. 

This  is  the  Act  of  1793 ;  and  is  not  this  political  power 
allowed  by  Act  of  Parhament  ?  So  that  the  objection  goes 
not  so  much  against  the  petition  as  against  the  law,  and  the 
law  is  the  answer  to  it.  The  reasons  they  give  for  objecting 
to  the  law  are,  first.  That  the  Catholics  do  not  acknowledge  the 
King  to  be  the  head  of  their  Church.  To  require  a  person  of 
the  Catholic  faith  to  acknowledge  a  person  of  another  religion, 
who  makes  no  very  encouraging  declarations  towards  them, 
to  be  the  head  of  the  Catholic  Church,  is  going  very  far  ;  but 
to  make  the  withholding  such  acknowledgment,  the  test  of 
disaffection,  is  going  much  farther  ;  farther  than  reason,  and 
farther  than  the  law,  which  does  not  require  such  test,  but  is 
satisfied  with  a  negative  oath,  and  therefore  the  Presbyterian 
who  makes  no  such  acknowledgment  may  sit  in  Parliament  ; 
so  that  here  the  objector  is  answered  again  by  the  law,  and  the 
reason  he  gives  in  opposition  to  the  law  shows  that  the  legisla- 
ture is  wiser  than  the  objector.  The  reason  alleged  is,  that  he 
allows  his  Majesty  to  be  the  head  of  his  Church  and  has  more 
allegiance,  because  he  acknowledges  the  King  in  more  capaci- 
ties ;  according  to  this  the  Turk  has  more  allegiance  than 
either  ;  for  he  acknowledges  the  Grand  Seignior  in  all  capacities  ; 
and  the  Englishman  has  less  allegiance  than  any  other  subject 
in  Europe,  because,  whereas  other  European  subjects  acknow- 
ledge their  King  in  a  legislative  as  well  as  an  executive  capacity, 
the  English  acknowledge  their  King  in  the  latter  capacity  only  ; 
but  such  men  know  not  how  to  estimate  allegiance  which  is 
not  measured  by  the  powers  which  you  give,  but  by  the  privi- 
leges which  you  keep  :  thus  your  allegiance  is  of  an  higher 
order,  because  it  is  rendered  for  the  proud  circumstances 
belonging  to  an  Englishman,  to  the  peer  who  has  his  rank, 
the  commoner  who  has  his  privileges,  and  the  peasant  who 
has  his  magna  charta.  The  Catholic,  too, — he  has  an  interest 
in  his  allegiance  ;   increase  that  interest,  that  is,  increase  this 


GRATTAN  243 

privilege,  you  increase  the  force  of  his  obhgation,  and  with  it 
your  own  security  ;  but  here  again  the  objector  interposes, 
and  alleges,  that  the  Cathohc  does  not  only  not  acknowledge 
the  King  to  be  the  head  of  their  Church,  but  acknowledges 
a  foreign  power  : — Whom  ?  I  cannot  find  him.  There  was, 
indeed,  a  power  which  you  set  up  in  the  last  war  and  guarded 
with  your  troops  ;  is  that  the  memory  at  which  gentlemen 
tremble  ?  A  sort  of  president,  or  chair,  in  whose  name  the 
business  of  the  Catholic  Church  is  conducted,  for  whom  no 
Catholic  would  fight,  and  against  whom  the  Irish  Catholic 
would  fight,  if  he  came  into  their  coimtry  at  the  head  of  an 
invading  army  ;  they  have  said  so.  You  will  recollect  how 
little  you  yourselves  feared  that  name,  when  you  encompassed 
and  preserved  it,  at  the  very  time  of  the  Irish  rebellion  ;  and 
now  do  gentlemen  set  it  up  and  bring  it  back  again  into  the 
world,  as  a  principle  likely  to  influence  the  action  of  the  Irish  ? 
But  then  I  here  received  an  answer  to  this,  viz.,  that  Bonaparte 
has  gotten  possession  of  the  power  and  person  of  the  Pope. 
What  power  ?  He  had  no  power  before  his  captivity,  and 
therefore  he  became  a  captive  ;  he  has  not  found  his  power  in 
his  captivity,  or  wiU  you  say,  that  he  could  now  disband  an 
Austrian  army  or  an  Irish  army,  or  that  if  he  were  to  issue  out 
his  excommunications,  your  seamen  and  soldiers  would  desert. 
Such  the  power  of  the  Pope,  such  your  fear  of  it,  and  such  is 
the  force  of  their  argument.  What  is  the  poHcy  of  it  ?  Bona- 
parte has  gotten  the  Pope  ;  give  him  the  Catholics  :  but  here 
the  objector  interposes  again,  and  tells  us,  it  is  in  vain  to  look 
for  harmony  with  the  Catholics,  inasmuch  as  they  deliver  us, 
the  Protestants,  to  damnation  :  gravely  they  say  this,  soberly 
they  say  this,  in  the  morning,  and  according  to  this  you  must 
not  only  repeal  your  laws  of  toleration,  but  you  must  disband 
part  of  your  army  and  your  navy,  and  disqualify  your  electors. 
The  Cathohc  who  hears  this  produces  a  Protestant  creed,  which 
does  the  same  thing,  and  damns  his  sect  likewise  ;  the  Infidel 
who  listens,  agrees  with  both,  and  triumphs  and  suggests  that 
it  were  better  not  to  cast  off  your  people,  but  to  shake  off  your 
rehgion.  So  Volney  makes  all  sects  contend,  and  all  conquer, 
and  rehgion  the  common  victim  ;  the  truth  is,  exclusive  salva- 
tion was  the  common  phrenzy  of  all  sects,  and  is  the  religion  of 
none,  and  is  now  not  rejected  by  all,  but  laughed  at ;  so 
burning  one  another  as  weU  as  damning  one  another,  you  can 


244  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

produce  instances — they  can  produce  instances  :  it  was  the 
habit  of  the  early  Christians  to  anathematize  all  sects  but  their 
own.  No  religion  can  stand,  if  men,  without  regard  to  their 
God,  and  with  regard  only  to  controversy,  shall  rake  out  of  the 
rubbish  of  antiquity  the  obsolete  and  quaint  follies  of  the 
Sectarians,  and  affront  the  majesty  of  the  Almighty,  with  the 
impudent  catalogue  of  their  devices  ;  and  it  is  a  strong  argu- 
ment against  the  proscriptive  system,  that  it  helps  to  continue 
this  shocking  contest ;  theologian  against  theologian,  polemic 
against  polemic,  until  the  two  madmen  defame  their  common 
parent,  and  expose  their  common  religion.  With  arguments  such 
as  these  it  is  urged  that  the  laws  were  in  error  which  gave  the 
Catholic  political  power  ;  and  it  is  further  added  that  he  will 
use  that  political  power  to  destroy  the  Church.  I  do  not  think 
they  have  now  said.  He  will  destroy  the  present  state  of  pro- 
perty :  bigotry  has  retired  from  that  post,  and  has  found  out, 
at  last,  that  the  Catholics  cannot  repeal  the  Act  of  Settlement 
in  Ireland,  by  which  the  property  of  the  country  was  ascer- 
tained, until  they  become  the  Parliament ;  nor  become  the 
Parliament,  till  they  get  the  landed  property  of  the  country  ; 
and,  that  when  they  get  the  property,  they  will  not  pass 
an  act  to  set  aside  their  titles  to  it.  Further,  it  is  now  under- 
stood that  the  Protestant  title  is  by  time  ;  that  there  are  few 
old  Catholic  proprietors,  a  multitude  of  new  ones  ;  that  the 
Catholic  tenantry  hold  under  Protestant  titles ;  and  therefore, 
that  there  is,  in  support  of  the  present  state  of  property  in 
Ireland,  not  only  the  strength  of  the  Protestant  interest,  but 
the  physical  force  of  the  Catholics  ;  therefore  the  objectors 
have  judiciously  retired  from  that  ground,  and  now  object  to 
Catholic  power,  as  certain  to  destroy  the  Protestant  Church. 
How  ?  They  must  do  it  by  act  of  legislation,  or  by  act  of 
force  ;  by  act  of  legislation  they  cannot,  and  by  force  they 
would  not :  they  would  not  by  act  of  force,  because  the  measures 
proposed,  which  do  not  go  to  increase  the  force,  do  go  decisively 
to  remove  the  animosity  ;  or  will  you  say,  when  you  give  them 
every  temporal  motive  to  allegiance  they  will  become  rebels  ; 
that  when,  indeed,  they  had  rights  of  religion,  rights  of  property, 
rights  of  election,  they  were  loyal ;  but  when  you  gratified 
their  ambition  likewise,  then  they  became  disaffected,  and 
ready  to  sacrifice  all  their  temporal  rights  and  political  gratifi- 
.cations  ?     In  order  to  do  what  ?     To  get  a  larger  income  for 


GRATTAN  245 

their  clergy ;  that  is,  that  their  bishops  should  drink  more  claret, 
and  wear  finer  clothes  ;  and  with  whose  assistance  should  they 
do  this  ?  With  the  aid  of  the  French,  who  starve  their  clergy  ; 
the  ordinary  principles  of  action  :  the  human  motives  that 
direct  other  men,  according  to  these  reasoners,  are  not  to  be 
found  in  the  Catholic  ;  nature  is  in  him  reversed  ;  he  is  not 
influenced  by  the  love  of  family,  of  property,  of  privilege,  of 
power,  or  any  human  passions,  according  to  his  antagonists, 
no  more  than  his  antagonists  appear  in  their  logic  influenced 
by  human  reason  ;  and  therefore  it  is,  these  reasoners  deal 
most  in  the  prophetic  strain — a  prophet's  fury,  and  his  bUnd- 
ness,  much  zeal,  and  no  religion.  I  would  ask  them,  what 
authority  have  they  for  thus  introducing  the  Church  as  an 
obstacle  to  the  advantages  of  the  State  ?  Is  it  political,  or  is 
it  moral,  to  deprive  the  Catholics  of  the  franchises  of  the 
constitution,  because  they  contribute  to  the  Church,  lest  on 
obtaining  those  franchises  they  should  pass  laws  withholding 
that  contribution,  as  if  you  had  any  right  to  make  that  sup- 
position, or  any  right  to  insist  on  that  perilous  monopoly, 
which  should  exclude  them  at  once  from  Church  and  State, 
that  they  might  pay  for  both  without  compensation  ?  The 
great  preachers  of  our  capital  have  not  said  so  ;  Mr.  Dunn, 
that  meek  spirit  of  the  gospel,  he  has  not  said  so  ;  Mr.  Douglass, 
in  his  strain  of  piety,  morals,  and  eloquence,  he  has  not  said 
so  ;  nor  the  great  luminary  himself  ;  he  who  has  wrung  from 
his  own  breast,  as  it  were,  near  £60,000,  by  preaching  for 
public  charities,  and  has  stopped  the  mouth  of  hunger  with 
its  own  bread,  he  has  not  said  so.  I  ask  not  what  politicians 
may  instil  and  may  whisper,  but  what  have  the  laborious 
clergymen  preached  and  practised  ? 

But  the  Revolution,  it  seems,  is  an  eternal  bar  :  they  find 
the  principles  of  slavery  in  the  Revolution,  as  they  have  found 
those  of  darkness  in  the  Revolution.  If  they  mean  to  measure 
the  privileges  of  the  empire  by  the  model  existing  at  the 
Revolution,  they  must  impose  on  Ireland  eternal  proscription  ; 
for  at  that  time  she  was  deprived  of  the  rights  of  trade  and 
constitution,  and  the  Catholics  of  all  rights  whatsoever  ;  and 
they  must  impose  on  the  empire  two  opposite  principles  of 
action,  the  free  system  for  England,  and  the  proscriptive 
principle  for  the  rest ;  they  are  then  to  make  Ireland  fight  for 
British  liberty  and  Irish  exclusion  ;  their  argument  is  therefore 


246  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

not  only  a  wicked  wish,  but  a  vain  one  ;  nor  is  this  the  practice 
of  other  countries — those  countries  do  not  require  the  rehgion 
of  the  pubhc  officer  to  be  the  rehgion  of  the  State  ;  their 
practice  has  been  notoriously  otherwise  :  they  who  said  the 
contrary  labour  under  a  glaring  error  ;  nor  will  you  be  able 
to  encounter  France,  and  the  other  nations  of  Europe,  if  they 
shall  avail  themselves  of  the  talents  of  all  their  people,  and 
you  will  oppose  them  by  only  a  part  of  yours.  It  follows,  then, 
whether  you  look  to  the  principles  of  liberty  or  empire,  that 
you  cannot  make  the  proscriptive  system  of  the  Revolution 
the  measure  of  empire  ;  you  must  then  make  the  principles 
of  the  Revolution  that  measure  :  what  are  those  principles  ? 
Civil  and  religious  liberty  :  they  existed  at  that  time  in  full 
force  for  you  ;  they  existed  as  seminal  principles  for  us  ;  they 
were  extended  to  the  Protestant  part  of  Ireland  a  century 
after  ;  they  remain  now  to  be  extended  to  the  Catholics  ; 
then  will  your  Revolution  be  completed,  not  overthrown  ;  then 
will  you  extend  the  principles  of  your  empire  on  those  of  your 
constitution,  and  have  secured  an  uniformity  of  action,  by 
creating  an  identity  of  interest  ;  thus  will  you  have  simplified 
the  imperial  and  constitutional  motions  to  one  and  the  same 
principle  of  action,  moving  you  in  your  home  and  in  your 
imperial  orbit,  informing  the  body  of  your  laws,  and  vivifying 
the  mass  of  your  empire.  The  petition  of  the  county  of 
Oxford  states,  the  Catholics  have  ever  been  enemies  to  freedom, 
just  as  the  controversialists  have  said  the  Catholics  must  be 
enemies  to  the  King  ;  yet  the  Revolution,  from  whose  benefits 
you  are  to  exclude  the  Catholics,  was  founded  on  a  model 
formed  and  moulded  by  Catholics  ;  the  declaration  of  right 
being  almost  entirely  declaratory  of  rights  and  privileges 
secured  by  your  Catholic  ancestors  :  one  of  your  great  merits 
at  the  Revolution  was  not  to  have  exceeded  that  model ;  but, 
on  the  contrary,  you  restrained  popular  victory,  and  restored 
establishments,  and  kindled  a  modest  spirit,  which  has  out- 
lasted the  French  conflagration  ;  a  vital  heat  which  then 
cheered  you,  which  now  should  cheer  the  Catholic,  and  giving 
light  and  life  to  both,  I  hope  will  be  eternal.  The  great  objects, 
Church,  State,  and  property,  I  adopt  with  the  controversialist, 
and  beg  to  rescue  them  from  his  wisdom,  to  give  them,  for  their 
support,  the  physical  force  of  the  Catholic  body,  inasmuch  as 
our   danger   does   not   arise   from   the  possible   abuse  of  his 


GRATTAN  247 

constitutional  power,  but  from  the  possible  abuse  of  his  physical 
force  to  obtain  that  constitutional  power  :  in  all  this  debate, 
you  will  observe,  we  argue  as  if  we  had  but  one  enemy,  the 
Catholic,  and  we  forget  the  French  ;  and  here,  what  I  said  to 
the  Irish  Parliament,  on  the  Catholic  question,  I  will  repeat 
to  you  :  I  said  to  them,  "  The  post  you  take  is  injudicious — 
independency  of  the  British  Parliament,  exclusion  of  the 
Irish  Catholics,  a  post  to  be  kept  against  the  power  of  one 
country  and  the  freedom  of  the  other." 

I  now  say  to  you,  the  post  you  would  take  is  injudicious ; 
a  position  that  would  keep  France  in  check,  and  Ireland  in 
thraldom  ;  to  be  held  against  the  power  of  one  country,  and 
the  freedom  of  the  other.  There  are  three  systems  for  Ireland  ; 
one,  such  as  Primate  Boulter  has  disclosed,  a  system  to  set 
the  people  at  variance,  on  account  of  religion,  that  the  govern- 
ment might  be  strong,  and  the  country  weak  ;  a  system  (such 
a  one  as  prevailed  when  I  broke  her  chain)  which  made  the 
minister  too  strong  for  the  constitution,  and  the  country  too 
weak  for  the  enemy  ;  a  system  which  one  of  its  advocates 
had  described  when  he  said  the  Protestants  of  Ireland  were 
a  garrison  in  an  enemy's  country  ;  and  which  another  gentle- 
man has  described,  when  he  considered  Ireland  as  a  caput 
mortum  :  this  system  has  failed  :  it  ought  to  have  failed  ;  it 
was  a  party  government,  and  a  party  god. 

There  is  another  extermination  that  will  not  do ;  the 
extermination  of  three  millions  of  men  would  be  no  easy  task 
in  execution,  no  very  charitable  measure  in  conception  ;  the 
justices  of  1641  had  dreamed  of  it,  Cromwell  had  attempted, 
Harrington  had  talked  of  it.  I  hold  the  extermination  of  the 
people,  and  even  of  their  hierarchy,  to  be  such  an  experiment 
as  will  not  be  proposed  by  any  gentleman  who  is  perfectly  in 
his  senses  ;  extermination  then  will  not  do  ;  what  is  left  ? 
The  partial  adoption  of  the  Catholics  has  failed  ;  the  eradication 
of  the  Catholics  cannot  be  attempted  ;  the  absolute  incorpora- 
tion remains  alone  ;  there  is  no  other  ;  or  did  you  think  it 
necessary  to  unite  with  the  Irish  Parliament,  and  do  you  hesi- 
tate to  identify  with  the  people  :  see  whether  you  can  conduct 
your  empire  on  any  other  principle  ;  the  better  to  illustrate 
this,  and  in  order  to  ascertain  the  principles  of  your  empire, 
survey  its  comprehension  ;  computing  your  West  Indies  and 
your  eastern  dominions,  England  has  now,  with  all  deference 


248  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

to  her  moderation,  a  very  great  proportion  of  the  globe.  On 
what  principle  will  she  govern  that  portion  ?  On  the  principles 
on  which  Providence  governs  the  remainder  :  when  you  make 
your  dominions  commensurate  with  a  great  portion  of  her 
works,  you  should  make  your  laws  analogous  to  her  dispensa- 
tions ;  and  as  there  is  no  such  thing  as  an  exclusive  Providence, 
so  neither,  considering  the  extent  of  your  empire,  should  there 
be  such  a  thing  as  an  exclusive  empire,  but  such  a  one  as  accom- 
modates to  peculiar  habits,  religious  prejudices,  preposses- 
sions, etc.,  etc.  You  do  not,  in  your  despatches  to  your 
generals,  send  the  Thirty-Nine  Articles  ;  you  know  the  bigot 
and  conqueror  are  incompatible  :  Louis  XIV  found  it  so. 
You  know  that  no  nation  is  long  indulged  in  the  exercise  of 
the  two  qualities,  bigotry  to  proscribe  at  home,  ambition  to 
disturb  abroad  :  such  was  your  opinion  when  you  established 
popery  in  Canada — I  do  not  speak  of  Corsica  :  such  your 
opinion  when  you  recruited  for  the  foot  in  Ireland.  It  was 
in  the  American  War  this  practice  began ;  then  you  found  that 
the  principle  of  exclusive  empire  would  not  answer,  and  that 
her  test  was  not  who  should  say  her  prayers,  but  who  should 
fight  her  battles  :  on  the  same  principle,  the  Irish  militia, 
which  must  be,  in  a  great  proportion,  Catholic,  stands,  and  on 
the  same  principle  the  Irish  yeomanry,  who  must  be  in  a  far 
more  considerable  proportion  Catholic,  stand  ;  and,  on  the 
same  principle,  you  have  recruited  for  the  Navy  in  Ireland, 
and  have  committed  your  sea  thunderbolt  to  Catholic  hands. 
Suppose,  in  Egypt,  the  General  had  ordered  the  Catholics  to 
go  out  of  the  ranks  ;  or  if  in  one  of  your  sea-fights,  the  admiral 
had  ordered  all  the  Catholics  on  shore,  what  had  been  the 
consequence  ?  It  is  an  argument  against  the  proscriptive 
system,  that  if  adopted  practically  in  navy  or  army,  the  navy 
and  army,  and  empire  would  evaporate  ;  and  shall  we  now 
proclaim-  these  men,  or  hold  such  language  as  the  member  ; 
language,  which  if  he  held  on  the  day  of  battle,  he  must  be 
shot ;  language  for  which,  if  a  Catholic,  he  must  be  hanged  ; 
such  as  you  despised  in  the  case  of  Corsica  and  of  Canada,  in 
the  choice  of  your  allies,  in  the  recruiting  your  army  and  your 
navy,  whenever  your  convenience,  whenever  your  ambition, 
whenever  your  interest  required  :  or  let  us  turn  from  the 
magnitude  of  your  empire  to  the  magnitude  of  its  danger,  and 
you  will  observe,  that  whereas  Europe  was  heretofore  divided 


GRATTAN  249 

in  many  small  nations  of  various  religions,  making  part  of 
their  civil  policy,  and  with  alliances,  influenced  in  some  degree, 
and  directed  by  those  religious  distinctions,  where  civil  and  reli- 
gious freedom  were  supposed  to  be  drawn  upon  one  side,  and  on 
the  other,  popery  and  arbitrary  power  ;  so  now  the  globe  has 
been  divided  anew — England  and  France.  You  have  taken 
a  first  situation  among  mankind,  you  are,  of  course,  precluded 
from  a  second.  Austria  may  have  a  second  situation,  Prussia 
may  have  a  second,  but  England  seems  to  have  linked  her 
post  and  being  to  her  glory,  and  when  she  ceases  to  be  the  first, 
she  is  nothing.  According  to  this  supposition,  and  it  is  a  sup- 
position which  I  do  not  frame,  but  find  in  your  country,  the 
day  may  not  be  very  remote,  when  you  will  have  to  fight  for 
being,  and  what  you  value  more  than  being,  the  ancient 
renown  of  your  island  :  you  have  said  it  yourselves,  and  you 
have  added,  that  Ireland  is  your  vulnerable  part :  why  vulner- 
able ?  Vulnerable,  because  you  have  misgoverned  her  ;  it 
may  then  happen,  that  on  Irish  ground,  and  by  an  Irish  hand, 
the  destinies  of  that  ancient  monarchy,  called  Britain,  may 
be  decided.  Accordingly  you  have  voted  your  army,  but  you 
have  forgot  to  vote  your  people  ;  you  must  vote  their  passions 
Ukewise.  Horrors  at  the  French  proceedings  will  do  much, 
but  it  is  miserable  to  rely  on  the  crimes  of  your  enemies  always, 
on  your  own  wisdom  never  ;  besides,  those  horrors  did  not 
prevent  Prussia  from  leaving  your  alliance,  nor  Austria  from 
making  peace,  nor  the  United  Irishmen  from  making  war. 
Loyalty  will  do  much  ;  but  you  require  niore — patience  under 
taxes  and  loans,  such  as  are  increased  far  beyond  what  we  have 
been  accustomed  to,  from  one  million  and  a  half  to  nine  millions, 
nor  patience  only,  but  ardour.  The  strong  qualities,  not  such 
as  the  scolding  dialect  of  certain  gentlemen  would  excite  ;  a 
fire,  that  in  the  case  of  an  invasion  will  not  sit  as  a  spy  on  the 
doubt  of  the  day  and  calculate,  but  though  the  first  battle 
should  be  unsuccessful,  would,  with  a  desperate  fidelity,  come 
on  and  embody  with  the  destinies  of  England.  It  is  a  wretched 
thing  to  ask  how  would  they  act  in  such  a  case.  What,  after 
a  connection  of  six  hundred  years,  to  thank  your  admiral  for 
your  safety,  or  the  wind,  or  anything  but  your  own  wisdom  ; 
and  therefore  the  question  is  not  whether  the  Cathohcs  shaU 
get  so  many  seats,  but  whether  you  shall  get  so  many  millions  ; 
in  such  a  case,  you  would  have  all  people.     What  is  it  that 


250  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

constitutes  the  strength  and  health  of  England,  but  this  sort 
of  vitality,  that  her  privileges,  like  her  money,  circulate  every- 
where, and  centre  nowhere  ;  this  it  was  which  equality  would 
have  given,  but  did  not  give  France  ;  this  it  was  which  the 
plain  sense  of  your  ancestors,  without  equality,  did  give  the 
Enghsh  ;  a  something,  which  limited  her  kings,  drove  her 
enemies,  and  made  a  handful  of  men  fill  the  world  with  their 
name.  Will  you,  in  your  union  with  Ireland,  withhold  the 
regimen  which  has  made  you  strong,  and  continue  the  regimen 
which  has  made  her  feeble  ?  You  will  further  recollect,  that 
you  have  invited  her  to  your  patrimony,  and  hitherto  you  have 
given  her  taxes,  and  an  additional  debt  ;  I  believe  it  is  an 
addition  of  twenty-six  milHons  :  the  other  part  of  your  patri- 
mony, I  should  be  glad  to  see  it ;  talk  plainly  and  honestly 
to  the  Irish  ;  "  It  is  true  your  taxes  are  increased,  and  your 
debts  multiphed  ;  but  here  are  your  privileges,  great  burthens, 
and  great  privileges  ;  this  is  the  patrimony  of  England,  and 
with  this  does  she  assess,  recruit,  inspire,  consohdate."  But 
the  Protestant  ascendency,  it  is  said,  alone  can  keep  the  country, 
namely,  the  gentry,  clergy,  and  nobility,  against  the  French, 
and  without  the  people  :  it  may  be  so  ;  but  in  1641,  above 
ten  thousand  troops  were  sent  from  England  to  assist  that 
party  ;  in  1689,  twenty-three  regiments  were  raised  in  England 
to  assist  that  party  :  what  can  be  done  by  spirit  will  be  done 
by  them  ;  but  would  the  city  of  London,  on  such  assurances, 
risk  a  guinea  ?  The  Parhament  of  Ireland  did  risk  everything, 
and  are  now  nothing  ;  and  in  their  extinction  left  this  instruc- 
tion, not  to  their  posterity,  for  they  have  none  ;  but  to  you, 
who  come  in  the  place  of  their  posterity,  not  to  depend  on  a 
sect  of  religion,  nor  trust  the  final  issue  of  your  fortunes  to 
anything  less  than  the  whole  of  your  people. 

The  Parliament  of  Ireland — of  that  assembly  I  have  a 
parental  recollection.  I  sat  by  her  cradle,  I  followed  her 
hearse.  In  fourteen  years  she  acquired  for  Ireland  what  you 
did  not  acquire  for  England  in  a  century — freedom  of  trade, 
independency  of  the  legislature,  independency  of  the  judges, 
restoration  of  the  final  judicature,  repeal  of  a  perpetual 
mutiny  bill,  habeas  corpus  act,  nullum  tempus  act — a  great  work  ! 
You  will  exceed  it,  and  I  shall  rejoice.  I  call  my  countrymen 
to  witness,  if  in  that  business  I  compromised  the  claims  of  my 
country,  or  temporised  with  the  power  of  England  ;  but  there 


GRATTAN  251 

was  one  thing  which  baffled  the  effort  of  the  patriot,  and 
defeated  the  wisdom  of  the  Senate,  it  was  the  folly  of  the  theolo- 
gian. When  the  Parliament  of  Ireland  rejected  the  Catholic 
petition,  and  assented  to  the  calumnies  then  uttered  against 
the  Catholic  body,  on  that  day  she  voted  the  Union  :  if  you 
should  adopt  a  similar  conduct,  on  that  day  you  will  vote  the 
separation  :  many  good  and  pious  reasons  you  may  give  ; 
many  good  and  pious  reasons  she  gave,  and  she  lies  there 
with  her  many  good  and  her  pious  reasons.  That  the  Parlia- 
ment of  Ireland  should  have  entertained  prejudices,  I  am  not 
astonished ;  but  that  you,  that  you  who  have,  as  individuals  and 
as  conquerors,  visited  a  great  part  of  the  globe,  and  have  seen 
men  in  all  their  modifications,  and  Providence  in  aU  her  ways  ; 
that  you,  now  at  this  time  of  day,  should  throw  up  dykes 
against  the  Pope,  and  barriers  against  the  Catholic,  instead  of 
uniting  with  that  Catholic  to  throw  up  barriers  against  the 
French,  this  surprises  ;  and,  in  addition  to  this,  that  you  should 
have  set  up  the  Pope  in  Italy,  to  tremble  at  him  in  Ireland  ; 
and  further,  that  you  should  have  professed  to  have  placed 
yourself  at  the  head  of  a  Christian,  not  a  Protestant  league, 
to  defend  the  civil  and  religious  liberty  of  Europe,  and  should 
deprive  of  their  civil  liberty  one-fifth  of  yourselves,  on  account 
of  their  religion — this  surprises  me  ;  and  also  that  you  should 
prefer  to  buy  allies  by  subsidies,  rather  than  fellow-subjects 
by  privileges  ;  and  that  you  should  now  stand,  drawn  out  as 
it  were,  in  battalion,  16,000,000  against  36,000,000,  and  should 
at  the  same  time  paralyse  a  fifth  of  your  own  numbers,  by 
excluding  them  from  some  of  the  principal  benefits  of  your 
constitution,  at  the  very  time  you  say  all  your  numbers  are 
inadequate,  unless  inspired  by  those  very  privileges. 

As  I  recommend  to  you  to  give  the  privileges,  so  I  should 
recommend  the  Catholics  to  wait  cheerfully  and  dutifully. 
The  temper  with  which  they  bear  the  privation  of  power  and 
privilege  is  evidence  of  their  qualification  :  they  will  recollect 
the  strength  of  their  case,  which  sets  them  above  impatience  ; 
they  will  recollect  the  growth  of  their  case  from  the  time  it 
ivas  first  agitated,  to  the  present  moment ;  and,  in  that  growth, 
perceive  the  perishable  nature  of  the  objections,  and  the 
immortal  quality  of  the  principle  they  contend  for.  They  will 
further  recollect  what  they  have  gotten  already — rights  of 
religion,  rights  of  property,  and  above  aU,  the  elective  franchise. 


252  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

which  is  in  itself  the  seminal  principle  of  everything  else  : 
with  a  vessel  so  laden,  they  will  be  too  wise  to  leave  the  harbour, 
and  trust  the  fallacy  of  any  wind  :  nothing  can  prevent  the 
ultimate  success  of  the  Catholics  but  intemperance.  For  this 
they  will  be  too  wise  ;  the  charges  uttered  against  them  they 
will  answer  by  their  allegiance  :  so  should  I  speak  of  the 
Catholics.  To  the  Protestant  I  would  say,  you  have  gotten 
the  land  and  powers  of  the  country,  and  it  now  remains  to 
make  those  acquisitions  eternal.  Do  not  you  see,  according 
to  the  present  state  and  temper  of  England  and  France,  that 
your  country  must  ultimately  be  the  seat  of  war  ?  Do  not  you 
see,  that  your  children  must  stand  in  the  front  of  the  battle, 
with  uncertainty  and  treachery  in  the  rear  of  it.  If,  then,  by 
ten  or  twelve  seats  in  Parliament  given  to  Catholics,  you  could 
prevent  such  a  day,  would  not  the  compromise  be  everything  ? 
What  is  your  wretched  monopoly,  the  shadow  of  your  present, 
the  memory  of  your  past  power,  compared  to  the  safety  of 
your  families,  the  security  of  your  estates,  and  the  solid  peace 
and  repose  of  your  island  ?  Besides,  you  have  an  account  to 
settle  with  the  empire  ;  might  not  the  empire  accost  you  thus  ? 
*'  For  one  hundred  years  you  have  been  in  possession  of  the 
country,  and  very  loyally  have  you  taken  to  yourselves  the 
power  and  profit  thereof.  I  am  now  to  receive  at  your  hands 
the  fruits  of  all  this,  and  the  unanimous  support  of  your  people : 
where  is  it  ?  now,  when  I  am  beset  with  enemies  and  in  my 
day  of  trial."  Let  the  Protestant  ascendancy  answer  that 
question,  for  I  cannot.  Above  twenty  millions  have  been 
wasted  on  their  shocking  contest,  and  a  great  proportion  of 
troops  of  the  line  locked  up  in  the  island,  that  they  may  enjoy 
the  ascendancy  of  the  country,  and  the  empire  not  to  receive 
the  strength  of  it.  Such  a  system  cannot  last  :  their  destinies 
must  be  changed  and  exalted  ;  the  Catholics  no  longer  their 
inferior,  nor  they  inferior  to  every  one,  save  only  the  Catholic  ; 
both  must  be  free,  and  both  must  fight, — but  it  is  the  enemy, 
and  not  one  another  :  thus  the  sects  of  religion  renouncing, 
the  one  all  foreign  connection,  and  the  other  all  domestic 
proscription,  shall  form  a  strong  country  ;  and  thus  the  two 
islands,  renouncing  all  national  prejudices,  shall  form  a  strong 
empire — a  phalanx  in  the  west  to  check,  perhaps  ultimately 
to  confound  the  ambition  of  the  enemy.  I  know  the  ground 
on  which  I  stand,  and  the  truths  which  I  utter,  and  I  appeal 


GRATTAN  253 

to  the  objects  you  urge  against  me,  which  I  constitute  my 
judges,  to  the  spirit  of  your  own  religion,  and  to  the  genius 
of  your  own  revolution  ;  and  I  consent  to  have  the  principle 
which  I  maintain  tried  by  any  test,  and  equally  sound,  I  con- 
tend, it  will  be  found,  whether  you  apply  it  to  constitution 
where  it  is  freedom,  or  to  empire  where  it  is  strength,  or  to 
religion  where  it  is  light. 

Turn  to  the  opposite  principle,  proscription  and  discord — 
it  has  made  in  Ireland  not  only  war,  but  even  peace  calamitous  : 
witness  the  one  that  followed  the  victories  of  King  William, 
to  the  Catholics,  a  sad  servitude,  to  the  Protestants  a  drunken 
triumph,  and  to  both  a  peace  without  trade  and  without  con- 
stitution. You  have  seen  in  1798  rebellion  break  out  again, 
the  enemy  masking  her  expeditions  in  consequence  of  the  state 
of  Ireland,  twenty  millions  lost,  one  farthing  of  which  did  not 
tell  in  empire,  and  blood  barbarously,  boyishly,  and  most 
ingloriously  expended.  These  things  are  in  your  recollection  : 
one  of  the  causes  of  these  things,  whether  efficient,  or  instru- 
mental, or  aggravating,  the  proscriptive  system,  I  mean,  you 
may  now  remove  ;  it  is  a  great  work  ! — or  has  ambition  not 
enlarged  your  mind,  or  only  enlarged  the  sphere  of  its  action  ? 
What  the  best  men  in  Ireland  wished  to  do  but  could  not  do, 
the  patriot  courtier,  and  the  patriot  oppositionist,  you  may 
accomphsh.  What  Mr.  Gardiner,  Mr.  Langrishe,  men  who 
had  no  views  of  popularity  or  interest,  or  any  but  the  public 
good  ;  what  Mr.  Daly,  Mr.  Burgh,  men  whom  I  shall  not 
pronounce  to  be  dead,  if  their  genius  live  in  this  measure  ; 
what  Mr.  Forbes,  every  man  that  loved  Ireland  ;  what  Lord 
Pery,  the  wisest  man  Ireland  ever  produced ;  what  Mr. 
Hutchinson,  an  able,  enlightened,  and  accomplished  servant 
of  the  Crown  ;  what  Lord  Charlemont,  superior  to  his  early 
prejudices,  bending  under  years  and  experience,  and  public 
affection  ;  what  that  dying  nobleman  ;  what  our  Burke  ; 
what  the  most  profound  divines,  Dr.  Newcome,  for  instance, 
our  late  Primate  (his  mitre  stood  in  the  front  of  that  measure), 
what  these  men  supported,  and  against  whom  ?  Against  men 
who  had  no  opinion  at  that  time,  or  at  any  time,  on  the  subject, 
except  that  which  the  minister  ordered,  or  men,  whose  opinions 
were  so  extravagant,  that  even  bigotry  must  blush  for  them  ; 
and  yet  these  men  above  mentioned  had  not  before  them  con- 
siderations which  should  make  you  wise — that  the  Pope  has 


254  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

evaporated,  and  that  France  has  covered  the  best  part  of 
Europe.  That  terrible  sight  is  now  before  you  ;  it  is  a  gulf 
that  has  swallowed  up  a  great  portion  of  your  treasure,  it  yawns 
for  your  being — were  it  not  wise,  therefore,  to  come  to  a  good 
understanding  with  the  Irish  now  ;  it  will  be  miserable  if 
anything  untoward  should  happen  hereafter,  to  say  we  did  not 
foresee  this  danger  ;  against  other  dangers,  against  the  Pope 
we  were  impregnable  ;  but  if  instead  of  guarding  against 
dangers  which  are  not,  we  should  provide  against  dangers 
which  are,  the  remedy  is  in  your  hands — the  franchises  of  the 
constitution.  Your  ancestors  were  nursed  in  that  cradle,  the 
ancestors  of  the  petitioners  were  less  fortunate,  the  posterity 
of  both  bom  to  new  and  strange  dangers  ;  let  them  agree  to 
renounce  jealousies  and  proscriptions,  in  order  to  oppose  what, 
without  that  agreement,  will  overpower  both.  Half  Europe 
is  in  battalion  against  us,  and  we  are  damning  one  another  on 
account  of  mysteries,  when  we  should  form  against  the  enemy, 
and  march. 


CANNING 

George  Canning  began  public  life  as  a  pupil  of  the  younger 
Pitt,  and  died,  like  his  master,  Prime  Minister  of  England. 
He  made  his  way,  if  any  man  did,  by  speaking,  especially 
by  speaking  in  the  House  of  Commons.  While  he  was  Member 
for  Liverpool,  from  1812  to  1822,  he  addressed  his  constitu- 
ents upon  public  affairs  with  more  freedom  than  was  then 
usual.  But  Parliament  was  his  chosen  sphere,  and  there  he 
delivered  all  the  speeches  that  are  now  associated  with  his 
name.  There  it  was  that  he  referred  to  himself  as  having 
by  his  foreign  policy,  called  the  new  world  into  existence  to 
redress  the  balance  of  the  old.  There  it  was  that  he  exercised 
by  his  eloquence  a  power  which  can  only  be  understood  by  a 
careful  study  of  the  speeches  themselves.  After  his  quarrel 
with  Castlereagh  in  1809,  he  was  long  out  of  office,  and  his 
own  little  party  did  not  count  for  much.  But  he  could  always 
reckon  upon  an  attentive  hearing,  and  his  friends  never  shared 
the  public  distrust  which  some  of  his  actions  inspired.  As 
Foreign  Secretary  he  was  bold  and  resolute.  As  Prime  Minister 
he  had  no  opportunity  of  developing  his  schemes.  But  in 
debate  he  shone  with  unrivalled  lustre  as  a  master  of  exposi- 
tion, of  comment,  and  of  reply.  He  had  the  art  of  so  putting 
his  points  that  for  the  moment  they  seemed  unanswerable, 
and  that  even  when  they  were  afterwards  answered,  they 
remained  the  best  arguments  for  his  side  of  the  case.  He 
always  gave  the  House  of  Commons  the  clearest  reasons  for 
adopting  the  course  he  wished  them  to  take.  To  compare 
Canning  with  other  orators  is  not  easy.  He  resembled  Burke 
rather  than  Pitt  because  his  mind  always  recurred  to  principles 
as  affording  the  ground  from  which  policy  could  be  reached. 
But  when  once  he  had  started  on  his  logical  course,  he  pur- 
sued it  straight  to  the  particular  goal  at  which  he  was  aiming. 

255 


256  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

He  did  not,  like  Burke,  sometimes  lose  himself  in  the  laby- 
rinth of  an  attractive  theory.  He  came  to  the  point  before 
he  indulged  in  the  luxury  of  a  rhetorical  digression.  His 
experience,  though  so  frequently  interrupted,  was 
to  imbue  him  with  the  necessity  of  directing  his  facul- 
^ractical  aims,  and  of  cultivating  lucidity  as  a  fine 
art.  If  his  hearers  were  to  be  perplexed,  it  must  be  his 
motive,  and  not  his  meaning,  of  which  they  were  in  doubt. 
Perhaps  the  very  clearness  of  his  language  heightened  the 
impression  that  he  was  capable  of  intrigue.  It  seemed  impos- 
sible to  believe  that  a  man  who  spoke  so  clearly  could  be 
honestly  puzzled  by  conflicting  arguments  in  those  parts  of 
a  subject  which  he  did  not  endeavour  to  expound.  Yet  that 
might  be  the  fact.  For  the  conscience  of  government  is  com- 
plicated, and  all  the  bearings  of  a  question  have  to  be  com- 
prehended before  it  can  be  determined  as  a  whole.  Burke 
passed  his  life  in  theorising.  Pitt  had  no  time  for  theories. 
Canning  may  not  have  had  a  complete  scheme  of  political 
philosophy,  although  he  always  tried  to  put  his  thoughts  in  a 
philosophical  form,  and  to  represent  his  policy  as  the  inevitable 
result  of  orderly  reasoning.  Such  a  process  can  hardly  be 
achieved  without  ignoring  many  details,  and  thus  suppression 
may  be  imputed  where  sequence  alone  is  involved.  Canning 
had  the  highest  sense  of  truth  and  honour  when  he  used  those 
political  arguments  which  he  believed  would  be  the  most 
successful,  and  took  into  his  consideration  the  temper, 
even. the  mood,  of  his  audience,  who  were  apt  to  think  that 
the  whole  case  had  been  presented  to  them  when  they  had 
heard  it  as  it  quite  clearly  and  simply  appeared  to  Canning. 
He  never,  for  instance,  wavered  in  his  support  of  Catholic 
emancipation,  easy  as  it  would  be  to  show  that  his  argu- 
ments for  it  varied  in  strength  and  cogency  with  the  apparent 
likelihood  of  passing  it  into  law.  The  mere  fact  that  he  once 
brought  in  a  Bill  which  would  have  emancipated  Catholic 
Peers  only  is  enough  to  prove  that  he  tried  different  modes 


CANNING  257 

of  attaining  his  object,  and  on  the  question  of  the  securities 
to  be  required  of  the  Cathohcs  he  was  quite  willing  to  be 
guided  by  circumstances.  If  he  could  have  had  his  own 
way,  he  would  have  granted  enfranchisement  in  the  most 
complete  and  liberal  form.  He  is  not  to  be  blamed  for  readi- 
ness to  adopt  such  conditions  or  modifications  as  would  be  most 
likely  to  ensure  success.  Castlereagh,  though  quite  as  strongly 
convinced  of  the  need  for  emancipation  as  Canning,  made  no 
scruple  about  joining  a  Cabinet  pledged  not  to  introduce  it, 
and  it  was  carried  after  they  were  both  dead  by  two  states- 
men, Wellington  and  Peel,  who  had  hitherto  opposed  it  as 
strongly  as  Castlereagh  and  Canning  had  supported  it. 

On  the  Recognition  of  the  South  American  Republics 
House  of  Commons,  June  15th,  1824 

Unquestionably,  Sir,  I  am  very  far  from  having  anything 
to  complain  of,  either  with  respect  to  the  tone  or  topics  with 
which  my  honourable  and  learned  friend  has  introduced  his 
speech  ;  and  if  the  observations  which  I  shall  feel  it  my  duty 
to  make  upon  that  speech,  or  the  petition  on  which  it  is 
founded,  shaU  bear  but  a  small  proportion  to  his  address,  I 
hope  he  will  do  me  the  justice  to  believe,  that  it  is  not  in  conse- 
quence of  any  offence  at  what  he  has  said,  or  any  disrespect 
for  his  opinions.  But  my  honourable  and  learned  friend 
must  be  fuUy  aware,  that  though  there  are  in  what  he  beUeved 
might  be  called  the  late  Spanish  colonies  great  questions 
involved,  anything  which  may  fall  from  me,  on  the  part  of 
his  Majesty's  Government,  would  be  likely  to  produce  effects, 
which  neither  he  nor  I  could  wish  to  witness.  I,  therefore, 
must  rather  restrain  every  disposition  which  I  feel  to  follow 
my  honourable  and  learned  friend  through  the  various  topics 
upon  which  he  has  touched,  and  confine  myself,  as  much 
as  possible,  to  a  simple  statement  of  facts,  with  no  other 
qualification  than  a  full  and  clear  understanding  of  them. 

My  honourable  and  learned  friend  has  gone  over  the  papers, 
formally  laid  on  the  table,  and  given  a  just  analysis  of  the 
course  hitherto  pursued  by  his  Majesty's  Government,  with 
respect  to  the  South  American  colonies.     He  has  justly  stated 

17— (*i7o) 


258  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

that  the  first  question,  in  point  of  order,  for  that  consideration, 
was  the  question  between  the  parent  state  and  her  colonies  ; 
and  that  the  course  laid  down  by  ministers,  was  one  of  strict 
neutrality.  In  doing  this,  it  was  also  right  to  observe,  that 
allowing  the  colonists  to  assume  an  equal  belligerent  rank  with 
the  parent  country  we  did,  pro  tanto,  raise  them  in  the  scale  of 
nations. 

My  honourable  and  learned  friend  has  justly  said,  and  it 
was  also  stated  by  the  petitioners,  that,  in  the  year  1822,  the 
extent  of  the  commerce  then  existing  between  this  country 
and  the  colonies  of  Spain,  led  to  another  de  facto  recognition 
of  their  separate  political  existence :  we  recognized  their 
commercial  flag  ;  which  was  admitted  to  the  same  advantages 
as  the  flags  of  independent  states  in  amity  with  England.  He 
has  also  most  correctly  remarked,  that  the  next  step  was 
taken  before  the  breaking  out  of  the  war  between  France 
and  Spain  ;  an  intimation  was  at  that  period  given  to  Spain, 
privately  in  the  first  instance,  and  afterwards  publicly  to  the 
whole  world,  that  to  the  British  Government  it  appeared, 
that  time  and  events  had  very  substantially  decided  the 
question  of  separation  ;  but  that  the  fact  of  recognition  must 
be  determined  by  various  circumstances,  and,  among  others, 
by  the  internal  state  of  each  of  the  colonies  so  claiming 
recognition. 

My  honourable  and  learned  friend  further  stated,  with  the 
same  accuracy,  that  after  the  declaration  made  to  Spain — 
after  the  publication  of  that  declaration,  which  left  neither  to 
Spain,  nor  to  any  other  power,  cause  of  complaint — if  Great 
Britain  should  think  fit  to  act  practically  upon  it,  the  circum- 
stances of  the  last  year  induced  this  country  to  suspend  even 
the  consideration  of  that  question — to  suspend  the  mission 
of  commercial  agents  to  South  America — and  to  remain  inac- 
tive and  undecided,  until  the  decision  of  the  contest  in  which 
France  and  Spain  were  engaged. 

Immediately  after  the  decision  of  that  contest,  or  rather, 
I  should  say,  at  the  moment  of  its  decision,  and  before  any 
consequences  could  arise,  and  any  step  be  taken  by  France, 
or  by  other  powers  of  Europe,  a  warning  was  given  by  this 
country,  in  the  clearest  terms,  as  to  the  course  she  would 
pursue  on  any  proposal  for  a  joint  conference  or  congress  on 
the  affairs  of  Spanish  America.     My  honourable  and  learned 


CANNING  259 

friend  has  faithfully  recalled  to  the  recollection  of  the  House, 
the  particular  expressions  of  that  warning. 

The  next  stage  in  the  course  of  these  transactions,  was  the 
proposal,  on  the  part  of  Spain,  that  this  country  should  become 
a  member  of  such  a  congress,  and  join  in  such  a  conference. 
That  proposal  was  followed  by  our  refusal.  On  the  mode  in 
which  that  proposal  was  made,  first  as  it  related  to  Spain,  and 
next  as  it  referred  to  the  colonies,  the  House  is  already  so 
perfectly  advised,  that  it  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  dwell  upon 
it.  Since  that  period  (and  this  forms  the  last  stage  of  these 
transactions)  a  public  discussion  has  taken  place  in  this  House. 
The  state  in  which  things  remained  the  last  time  the  question 
was  agitated  within  these  walls,  was  this.  It  was  stated 
that  the  King's  Government,  though  reserving  to  themselves 
the  right  of  acting  as  they  should  think  fit,  in  reference  to  the 
interests  of  Great  Britain  involved  in  those  colonies,  yet 
thought  it  not  merely  politically  expedient,  but  just  and 
generous,  to  afford  Spain  the  opportunity  of  precedency,  and 
absolutely  to  suspend  any  decision,  until  they  knew  in  what 
way  she  would  avail  herself  of  that  opportunity. 

What  I  have  now  to  state  is,  that  that  condition  is  at  an  end, 
and  that,  with  respect  to  any  further  steps  to  be  taken  by  this 
country  towards  the  Spanish  American  colonies,  she  must  act 
for  herself.  What  has  passed  upon  this  point  between  the  two 
cabinets,  it  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  particularize  ;  but  the 
result  is,  that  the  British  Government  is  left  to  act  upon  its 
own  decision,  without  any  further  reference  to  Spain.  Such 
is  the  result  I  have  to  state,  and  the  only  communication  I  have 
to  make  to  the  House  ends.  I  trust  honourable  gentlemen  will 
see,  that  in  stating  what  is  a  fact,  I  avoid,  rather  than  incur,  the 
danger  to  which  I  referred,  and  which  might  arise  from  the  agita- 
tion of  this  question.  I  apprehend  that  I  should  run  the  risk 
of  that  peril,  if  I  were  to  state  any  ulterior,  conjectural,  or 
even  hypothetical  case  ;  I  shall,  therefore,  carefully  shun  it. 
Here  I  should  conclude  what  I  have  to  address  to  the  House, 
were  I  not  glad  of  the  opportunity  afforded  me  by  the  speech 
of  my  honourable  and  learned  friend,  and  which  opportunity 
I  undoubtedly  thanked  him  for,  of  putting  on  its  true  ground, 
and  in  its  just  hght,  the  expression  of  **  recognition  "  which 
has  been  so  much  mistaken. 

It  is  perfectly  true,  as  has  been  mentioned,  that  the  term 


260  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

**  recognition  "  has  been  much  abused  ;  and,  unfortunately, 
that  abuse  has  perhaps  been  supported  by  some  authority ; 
it  has  clearly  two  senses,  in  which  it  is  to  be  differently  under- 
stood. If  the  colonies  say  to  the  mother  country,  "  We 
assert  our  independence,"  and  the  mother  country  answers, 
"  I  admit  it,"  that  is  recognition  in  one  sense.  If  the  colonies 
say  to  another  state,  "  We  are  independent,"  and  that  other 
state  replies,  "  I  allow  that  you  are  so,"  that  is  recognition  in 
another  sense  of  the  term.  That  other  state  simply  acknow- 
ledges the  fact,  or  rather  its  opinion  of  the  fact ;  but  she  con- 
fers nothing,  unless,  under  particular  circumstances,  she  may 
be  considered  as  conferring  a  favour.  Therefore,  it  is  one 
question,  whether  the  recognition  of  the  independence  of  the 
colonies  shall  take  place,  Spain  being  a  party  to  such  recogni- 
tion ;  and  another  question,  whether,  Spain  withholding  what 
no  power  on  earth  can  necessarily  extort  by  fire,  sword,  or 
conquest,  if  she  maintains  silence  without  a  positive  refusal, 
other  countries  should  acknowledge  that  independence.  I  am 
sure  that  my  honourable  and  learned  friend  will  agree  with  me 
in  thinking,  that  his  exposition  of  the  different  senses  of  the 
word  "  recognition  "  is  the  clearest  argument  in  favour  of  the 
course  we  originally  took  :  namely,  that  of  wishing  that  the 
recognition  in  the  minor  sense  should  carry  with  it  recognition 
by  the  mother  country  in  the  major  sense.  The  recognition 
by  a  neutral  power  alone  cannot,  in  the  very  nature  of  things, 
carry  with  it  the  same  degree  of  authority,  as  if  it  were  accom- 
panied by  the  recognition  by  the  mother  country  also.  If, 
therefore,  the  Government  of  Great  Britain  had  looked  exclu- 
sively to  the  interests  of  the  colonial  states,  she  would  reason- 
ably pursue  the  course  we  have  in  fact  taken  ;  it  must  have 
been  an  object  of  higher  importance  to  those  states,  that  the 
recognition  by  Great  Britain  should  be  delayed,  in  the  hope  of 
bringing  with  it  a  similar  concession  from  Spain,  rather  than 
that  the  recognition  by  Great  Britain  should  have  been  so 
precipitate  as  to  postpone,  if  not  prevent,  the  recognition  by 
the  mother  country.  Whether  all  hope  is  over  of  any  such  step, 
on  the  part  of  Spain,  is  another  question.  Our  obligation,  then, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  is  at  an  end — I  am  enabled  to  say  that 
positively.  The  rest  is  matter  of  opinion,  and  must  depend 
upon  a  balance  of  probabilities.  But,  as  my  honourable  and 
learned    friend    has    said,    this    simple    sense    of    the    term 


CANNING  261 

"  recognition  "  has  been  very  much  misunderstood,  both  here  and 
in  other  places  ;  because  though  there  is  nothing  more  plain  and 
easy  than  the  acknowledging  the  fact  (if  fact  it  be),  that  such  a 
government  is  independent,  yet  I  am  quite  certain  he  will 
agree  with  me,  that  it  may  make  a  difference,  if  that  acknow- 
ledgment be  asked,  which  implies  an  expectation  of  conse- 
quences which  do  not  necessarily  belong  to  it.  I  am  sure  he 
will  feel,  that  great  as  the  boon  of  recognition,  in  its  simplest 
sense,  might  be  to  any  new  government,  it  would  be  greater  if, 
though  given  in  one  sense,  if  it  were  accepted  in  another.  It 
might  be  given  as  a  mere  acknowledgment  of  a  fact,  and 
accepted  as  a  sort  of  treaty  of  alliance  and  co-operation. 

I  am  not  ignorant  of  the  many  commercial  interests  that 
call  for  this  proceeding  ;  but,  if  what  is  required  were  granted, 
some  suppose  that  it  would  necessarily  have  the  effect  of 
tranquillizing  the  State,  establishing  and  confirming  its  inde- 
pendence. The  simple  recognition  by  any  neutral  power,  if 
it  were  not  misunderstood,  could  have  no  such  effect.  I  am, 
therefore,  anxious  that  exaggerated  expectations  should  not 
be  indulged.  As  to  what  might  be  the  immediate  conse- 
quences of  recognition,  my  honourable  and  learned  friend  has 
put  two  cases,  the  possibility  of  the  existence  of  one  of  which 
I  certainly  do  not  feel.  He  says  that  South  America  must 
either  be  considered  as  one  great  mass,  and  then  the  contest 
in  any  part  bears  but  a  small  proportion  to  the  tranquiUity  of 
the  whole  ;  or  that  each  separate  state  must  be  considered 
by  itself,  and  then  only  the  state  in  which  the  contest  exists 
can  fairly  be  excluded  from  recognition.  I  have  no  sort  of 
difficulty  in  saying,  that  to  take  South  America  as  a  mass 
presents  a  physical  impossibility  ;  and  my  honourable  and 
learned  friend  does  not  pretend  that  there  is  any  government 
established  which  had  authority  over  the  whole.  That  position 
will,  therefore,  certainly  be  of  no  assistance  to  his  argument. 

The  other  point  of  view  he  has  presented  deserves  more 
consideration  ;  namely,  how  far  we  are  to  consider  each  sepa- 
rated state  entitled  to  recognition.  Into  this  part  of  the 
argument  I  do  not  go  at  present ;  this  is  a  horn  of  his  dilemma 
with  which  I  am  not,  for  various  reasons,  now  prepared  to 
contend.  I  will  state  only,  that  though  I  agree  with  him,  that 
we  have  no  pretence  to  be  so  difficult  and  scrupulous,  as  to 
insist  that  a  new  government  shall  have  all  the  stabihty  of  an 


262  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

old  one  before  we  acknowledge  its  independence,  yet  we  must 
act  with  some  degree  of  caution  before  we  can  give  our  fiat, 
even  if  it  be  understood  to  amount  to  no  more  than  a  declara- 
tion of  opinion.  We  are  not  bound,  indeed,  to  be  so  sure  of 
our  ground,  as  to  be  able  to  answer  for  it  that  our  opinion  shall 
turn  out  to  be  true  ;  but  we  are  bound  to  take  care  to  have  the 
chances  in  its  favour.  The  principal  to  guide  us  is  this  : — 
that  as  the  whole  of  our  conduct  should  be  essentially  neutral, 
we  ought  not  to  acknowledge  the  separate  and  independent 
existence  of  any  government  which  is  so  doubtfully  estab- 
lished, that  the  mere  effect  of  that  acknowledgment  shall  be, 
to  mix  parties  again  in  internal  squabbles,  if  not  in  open  hos- 
tilities. My  honourable  and  learned  friend  is  aware  that, 
before  we  can  act,  information  as  to  matters  of  fact  is  necessary. 
We  have  taken  the  means  to  obtain  that  information  ;  but  we 
are  not  yet  in  possession  of  that  official  intelligence,  which  will 
enable  us  to  arrive  at  a  decision.  Even  with  regard  to  the 
particular  state  last  alluded  to,  Columbia,  I  know  what  has 
passed  there,  only  through  the  same  channels  of  information 
my  honourable  and  learned  friend  seems  to  have  consulted — 
I  mean  the  newspapers.  I  have  seen  much  that  I  think  must 
be  rather  exaggerated,  but  I  have  yet  no  authentic  record  by 
which  I  can  correct  the  public  statements. 

This  is  all  that  I  think  it  consistent  with  my  duty  to  state  to 
my  honourable  and  learned  friend.  To  every  principle  laid 
down  in  the  papers  he  has  read,  and  on  which  he  has  bestowed 
commendation,  the  King's  Government  steadfastly  adheres. 
The  progress  made  since  we  last  had  any  communication  on 
the  subject,  is  a  proof  that  we  have  proceeded  in  the  execution 
of  those  principles  ;  and  as  my  honourable  and  learned  friend 
approves  of  all  that  is  stated  in  those  documents,  he  must,  I 
apprehend,  approve  equally  of  what  subsequently  occurred. 

The  House  will  judge  whether  it  is  expedient,  in  the  present 
state  of  affairs  necessarily  partaking  of  so  much  uncertainty, 
to  press  the  discussion  beyond  the  information  I  have  been 
able  to  give  ;  or  whether  it  would  not  complicate,  and  perhaps 
retard,  rather  than  accelerate,  the  object  in  view.  I  have 
only  to  add,  that  the  proposal  originally  made  by  Spain  to 
this  country,  to  become  a  party  to  a  congress  on  the  affairs 
of  South  America,  had  been  repeated,  and  again  refused  by 
the  Government  of  Great  Britain, 


DANIEL   O'CONNELL 

O'Connell's  success  as  an  orator  was  greater  in  Ireland  than 
in  England,  and  greater  on  the  platform  than  in  Parliament. 
But  it  was  everywhere  great.  He  had  extraordinary  readiness 
of  speech  and  immense  volubility  in  argument.  His  fertility 
of  resource  never  deserted  him,  and  even  in  the  House  of 
Commons,  where  the  sympathy  of  his  audience  was  against 
him,  he  could  almost  always  command  a  hearing.  Abusive 
as  he  often  was,  his  genuine  eloquence  so  far  refined  the  coarse- 
ness of  his  vocabulary  that  it  became  a  picturesque  ornament 
rather  than  an  ugly  excrescence.  On  the  hill-sides  of  Ireland 
he  was  most  thoroughly  himself.  But  his  forensic  training 
qualified  him  for  debate,  and  kept  him  more  closely  to  the  point 
than  his  rhetorical  instincts  would  otherwise  have  led  him. 
He  was  certainly  the  most  eloquent  Irishman  of  his  time,  and 
few  Members  of  Parliament,  Enghsh,  Irish,  or  Scotch,  could 
dispute  the  palm  with  him.  Too  intensely  national  to  feel 
at  home  in  this  country,  he  had  nevertheless  the  gift  of  arresting 
attention  as  soon  as  he  rose,  and  retaining  it  throughout  the 
longest  of  his  harangues.  He  was  not  always  lucid.  But 
he  was  always  earnest,  and  he  had  a  definite,  intelligible 
cause.  Repeal  of  the  Union  might  be  good  or  bad.  Nobody 
doubted  what  it  meant,  or  questioned  O'Connell's  sincerity 
in  demanding  it.  It  is  curious  and  significant  that  while  he 
succeeded  in  obtaining  Catholic  Emancipation,  for  which  he 
worked  in  Ireland,  he  failed  to  obtain  Repeal,  for  which  he 
worked  in  England.  His  settled  policy  was  to  procure  it  by 
constitutional  agitation,  and  his  monster  meetings  in  Ireland 
were  not  intended  to  be  more  than  passive  displays  of 
physical  force.  He  was  unable  to  control  Young  Ireland, 
nor  could  he  always  lay  the  spirits  that  he  raised.  But 
his   extraordinary   powers    of    eulogy,    encouragement,    and 

263 


264  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

invective  gave  him  a  preponderance  which  cannot  be 
ignored  in  any  estimate  of  oratorical  achievement  within  the 
United  Kingdom.  He  was  a  force.  The  range  and  compass 
of  his  voice  were  such  that  he  could  be  heard  with  equal  ease 
within  the  walls  of  Parliament  and  under  the  open  canopy  of 
Heaven.  Notwithstanding  the  violence  of  his  language  he 
was  by  disposition  genial,  and  quite  prepared  to  associate  on 
friendly  terms  with  his  political  opponents.  He  often  seemed 
to  be  astonished  at  the  impression  he  produced,  knowing  that 
his  malignity  was  histrionic,  and  forgetting  that  the  English 
people  are  given  to  be  as  literal  in  construction  as  they  are 
honest  in  design.  When  he  called  the  Whigs  **  base,  bloody, 
and  brutal,"  he  meant  that  they  were  proposing  a  policy  of 
stringent  coercion  for  Ireland.  He  lived  in  such  an  atmoS' 
phere  of  sentiment  and  exaggeration  that  he  could  not  accu- 
rately measure  the  effect  of  his  words  upon  a  race  so  unlike  his 
own  as  that  which  he  addressed  on  this  side  of  the  Channel. 

State  of  Ireland 

House  of  Commons,  Feb.  5th,   1833 

Mr.  O'Connell  said,  that  it  was  impossible  in  his  opinion  for 
the  representatives  of  the  people  to  agree  to  such  an  Address. 
He  thought  it  was  a  bloody  and  brutal  Address.  [Laughter.] 
Yes,  in  spite  of  that  laugh,  he  was  sure  that  it  was  a  bloody 
Address.  It  was  exactly  what  he  expected — a  declaration  of 
civil  war,  and  that  declaration  would  be  echoed  by  many  a 
wail  and  many  a  lament  throughout  Ireland.  It  was  such  an 
address  as  this  that  was  put  forth  to  America  when  England 
sent  her  secretaries  there  to  write  her  history  in  blood  ;  but 
that  attempt  terminated  in  the  utter  disgrace  and  discomfiture 
of  this  country.  He  repeated  that  the  address  proposed  was 
bloody,  brutal  and  unconstitutional ;  and  when  he  heard  the 
talk  in  that  House  as  to  the  deep  interest  which  it  felt  for  the 
welfare  of  Ireland — when  he  heard  the  gallant  officer  and  the 
newly  returned  member  for  Leeds  speak  of  the  attention  whicli 
the  situation  of  Ireland  would  receive  in  that  House — he 
could  not  avoid  teUing  them,  with  indignation,  that  this  brutal 


O'CONNELL  265 

address  showed  but  too  plainly  what  sort  of  system  was 
intended  to  be  acted  on  towards  that  unfortunate  country. 
He  called  it  a  brutal  Address — for  it  was  nothing  else.  He 
had  told  the  right  hon.  Secretary  ^  last  session,  that  his  measures 
would  increase  the  evils  of  Ireland.  He  prophesied  it  at  that 
time,  and  his  prophecy  had  proved  to  be  a  true  one.  He 
should  now  beg  that  that  part  of  his  Majesty's  speech  at  the 
conclusion  of  the  last  Session,  which  related  to  Ireland,  might 
be  read. 

The  clerk  accordingly  read  the  following  passage  : 

"  I  have  still  to  lament  the  continuance  of  disturbances  in  Ireland 
notwithstanding  the  vigilance  and  energy  displayed  by  my  Govern- 
ment there  in  the  measures  which  it  has  taken  to  repress  them.  The 
laws  which  have  been  passed,  in  conformity  with  my  recommendation 
at  the  beginning  of  the  Session,  with  respect  to  the  collection  of  tithes, 
are  well  calculated  to  lay  the  foundation  of  a  new  system  to  the  com- 
pletion oi  which  the  attention  of  Parliament,  when  it  again  assembles, 
will  of  course  be  directed.  To  this  necessary  work  my  best  assistance 
will  be  given,  by  enforcing  the  execution  of  the  laws,  and  by  promoting 
the  prosperity  of  a  country  blessed  by  Divine  Providence  with  so 
many  natural  advantages.  As  conducive  to  this  object,  I  must  express 
the  satisfaction  which  I  have  felt  at  the  measures  adopted  for  extending 
generally  to  my  people  in  that  Kingdom  the  benefits  of  Education." 

Mr.  O'Connell  continued  :  Here  Ireland  was  described  as 
a  country  "  blessed  by  Divine  Providence  with  so  many 
natural  advantages."  It  was,  indeed,  so  blessed.  Had  Scot- 
land, he  would  ask,  so  many  advantages  ?  Had  even  England 
so  many  advantages  ?  How,  then,  did  it  happen,  when  they 
talked  of  the  natural  advantages  of  Ireland,  that  that  country 
was  in  such  a  wretched  state  ?  He  might  be  sneered  at, 
but  he  would  assert  that  there  never  was  such  a  fruitful  country 
presenting  such  misery  ;  there  never  was  in  the  history  of  the 
world,  so  poor  a  people  with  so  rich  a  Church.  How  was  it 
that  after  seven  centuries  of  oppression,  there  was  still  to  be  a 
call  for  blood  in  that  country  ?  If  Irishmen  had  had  the 
conducting  of  Irish  affairs,  and  the  country  was  found  in  its 
present  state,  then  the  Parliament  of  England  might  have 
reproached  them.  But  such  was  not  the  case.  The  work  of 
evil  was  perpetrated  by  others.  It  was  unnecessary  to  speak 
of  what  the  noble  Lord  and  the  honourable  gentleman  said 
the  Government  meant  to  do  for  Ireland.  If,  after  seven  cen- 
turies, during  which  Ireland  was  subject  to  this  country — if 
1  Mr.  Stanley. 


266  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

after  that  long  lapse  of  time,  a  territory  so  blessed  by  Provi- 
dence, and  so  cursed  by  man,  was  still  in  a  state  of  wretchedness 
and  misery,  he  threw  the  blame  on  those  to  whom  the  govern- 
ment had  been  intrusted.  He  would  tell  them  that  their 
schemes  of  domination  and  of  oppression  could  not  succeed  ; 
and  he  would  say  that  there  was  but  one  remedy  for  the  woes 
of  Ireland,  and  that  was — to  do  justice.  He  had  asked,  on  a 
former  occasion,  why  it  was  that  Ireland  was  plunged  into  such 
a  wretched  situation.  But  he  received  no  answer.  Oh — 
yes,  he  did.  The  noble  Lord,  the  member  for  Devonshire, 
made  a  speech  at  him.  The  noble  Lord  emptied  on  him  the 
phial  of  his  wrath  ;  but  how  did  that  affect  him  ?  He  felt  it 
not.  He  very  well  knew  that  there  was  not  a  scion  of  English 
nobility  that  did  not  think  himself  better  than  an  Irishman  ; 
and  because  he  stated  the  wrongs  of  Ireland — because  he 
argued  that  his  country  should  not  be  left  a  spoil  to  the  right 
hon.  Secretary — he  was  sneered  at,  and  even  accused  as  the 
author  of  the  evils  by  which  his  country  was  weighed  down. 
Was  Ireland,  he  demanded,  more  peaceable  now,  after  the 
measures  of  the  right  hon.  Secretary,  than  it  was  at  the  time 
to  which  he  alluded  ?  Had  not  crime  increased  ?  Why  had 
it  increased  ?  That  was  the  only  subject  of  inquiry.  Origin- 
ating where  it  did,  and  spreading  as  it  had  done,  these  points 
properly  considered  would  show  what  sort  of  care  was  enter- 
tained for  the  welfare  and  happiness  of  Ireland.  It  was  very 
well  to  talk  of  what  was  meant  to  be  done  for  that  country, 
but  neither  he  nor  those  who  thought  with  him  would  be 
content  with  the  lip-service  and  mere  professions  of  any  set  of 
men.  He  asserted  that  crime  had  increased.  Then  came 
the  question,  why  had  it  increased  ?  There  were  two  modes 
in  which  it  had  been  accounted  for.  The  noble  Lord  accounted 
for  it  by  saying  that  it  was  produced  by  agitation  ;  and  it 
appeared,  from  the  manner  in  which  the  statement  was  cheered, 
that  many  gentlemen  entertained  the  same  opinion.  But 
the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  of  the  House  forgot  when  they 
thus  expressed  their  hostility  to  agitation,  that'  it  was  only  last 
year  that  they  themselves  were  reproached  with  the  crime  of 
being  agitators.  Those  gentlemen  were  told  that  the  people 
of  England  wanted  no  such  reform  as  these  people  contem- 
plated ;  that  they  wanted  none  of  those  changes  and  innova- 
tions which  ministers  proposed  and  carried  ;    and  the  charge 


O'CONNELL  267 

of  agitation  was  then  advanced  against  them  infinitely  more 
strongly  than  it  had  ever  been  directed  against  him  and  his 
friends.  So  far  as  he  was  himself  concerned,  he  treated  with 
contempt  this  charge  of  agitation.  The  question  was  whether 
the  increase  of  crime  was  caused  by  agitation  or  by  misgovem- 
ment  ?  He  would  prove  that  the  latter  was  the  cause.  Crime 
had  not  been  increased  by  words,  but  by  deeds.  This  was 
the  question  at  issue  between  him  and  the  noble  Lord.  The 
noble  Lord,  after  having  called  him  a  **  bird  of  prey,"  and  after 
having  made  use  of  several  similar  metaphors,  had,  in  the  end, 
the  singular  modesty  to  request  his  co-operation  in  supporting 
certain  measures.  What  co-operation  could  be  expected  from 
a  bird  of  prey  he  certainly  could  not  conceive.  They  had 
heard  much  of  what  was  to  be  done  for  Ireland.  The  right 
hon.  Secretary  had  been  for  two  years  in  Ireland,  and  what 
had  he  done  for  that  country  ?  What  measures  had  he  given 
notice  of  to-night  ?  Why,  his  rodomontade  alteration  in 
the  Grand  Jury  Law,  which  he  had  introduced  the  Session 
before  the  last  and  another  measure  for  increasing  the  constabu- 
lary force  in  Ireland.  Those  were  the  only  subjects  they  had 
heard  of.  Now,  really,  whether  he  was  a  bird  of  prey  or  an 
agitator,  he  did  not  think  it  was  worth  while  to  call  on  him 
for  his  co-operation  with  reference  to  such  measures.  When 
the  noble  Lord  had  done  as  much  for  Scotland  as  he  (Mr. 
O'Connell)  had  done  for  Ireland,  then,  perhaps,  the  noble 
lord  would  be  justified  in  speaking  so  confidently.  Did  the 
noble  Lord  find  his  countrymen  trampled  under  foot  ?  Did 
he  raise  them,  by  his  exertions,  from  that  state  of  degradation  ? 
If  he  had  done  that,  then  he  might  have  raised  his  voice  as  he 
had  done.  But,  in  the  absence  of  any  such  claim,  let  him  not, 
whatever  his  rank  and  station  might  be,  assail  men  better 
than  himself.  What  a  curse  it  was  for  Ireland,  that  every 
popinjay  you  met  in  the  streets,  who  was  capable  of  uttering 
fifteen  words,  was  sure  to  lard  his  speech  by  sarcasms  against 
Ireland.  The  terms  which  the  noble  Lord  applied  to  him  he 
rejected  with  indignation  and  scorn.  They  proved  the  noble 
Lord's  disposition  to  be  injurious,  but  they  proved  nothing 
more.  Looking  back  to  his  past  career,  he  recollected  the  time 
when  the  reproaches  directed  against  him  that  night  were 
multiplied  tenfold.  The  epithet  "  bird  of  prey,'*  and  other 
angry   expressions,   were  light   and  idle   compared  with   the 


268  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

reproaches  which  were  cast  on  him  when  he  agitated  the 
CathoHc  question.  He  agitated  then  efficiently ;  and  the 
conduct  of  the  King's  Government  that  day  would  enable  him 
to  agitate  still  more  effectively.  The  Government  agitated 
for  him.  They  were  forcing  Ireland  into  a  situation  from 
which  it  could  only  be  relieved  by  due  concession,  or  by  a 
sanguinary  convulsion.  In  his  opinion,  then,  the  Repeal  of 
the  Union  was  necessary  for  the  preservation  of  the  Throne 
of  the  King  and  his  successors — it  was  essentially  necessary 
for  the  peace  and  the  prosperity  of  Ireland  ;  and  he  thanked 
the  repealers  of  Ireland  for  having,  by  their  conduct,  raised 
that  question  to  the  dignity  and  station  which  it  at  present 
held.  It  was  the  habit,  last  year,  to  sneer  and  laugh  at  that 
question — in  short  to  talk  of  it  as  a  subject  that  never  would 
be  agitated  in  that  House.  But  now  what  was  the  case  ? 
All  parties  in  Ireland  were  merely  reconciled  by  the  conduct  of 
the  right  hon.  Secretary,  and  all  men  agreed  that  the  question 
was  one  that  demanded,  and  must  have,  a  public,  a  distinct, 
and  solemn  discussion  ;  and,  moreover,  that  it  was  a  question 
which  was  not  to  be  put  down  by  the  force  of  the  bayonet, 
but,  if  possible,  by  the  moral  force  of  proof,  and  that  he  was 
certain  could  not  be  adduced  ;  for  those  who  supported  repeal 
had  right  and  justice  on  their  side.  He  would  now  return  to 
the  original  question.  It  was  said  that  agitation  had  led  to 
the  present  state  of  Ireland.  He  asserted  that  those  who  thus 
argued  were  totally  wrong.  He,  on  the  contrary,  would  aver 
that  agitation  had  reduced  crime.  The  history  of  the  country 
proved  it,  and  it  was  a  great  pity  that  men  could  not  read  their 
own  history  correctly.  If  those  who  opposed  his  opinion  were 
right,  then  agitation  ought  to  be  put  down  ;  but  if  wrong,  then 
justice  should  be  done  to  Ireland.  He  claimed  justice,  and 
nothing  but  justice,  for  Ireland  :  but  the  ministers  proclaimed 
civil  war  for  Ireland — theirs  was  the  system  of  bayonets  and 
bullets.  They  called  for  additional  force.  In  this  mode  of 
government  there  was  no  ingenuity,  no  talent,  no  new  dis- 
covery ;  for  700  years  England  had  governed  Ireland  in  the 
same  way.  In  the  time  of  Henry  VIII,  when  only  a  portion 
of  Ireland  contained  King's  subjects,  in  the  time  of  Elizabeth, 
when  only  part  of  the  Irish  were  Queen's  subjects — the  govern- 
ment was  carried  on  in  the  same  way,  and  here  he  could  not 
refrain  from  remarking  that  so  very  ignorant  were  Englishmen 


O'CONNELL  269 

in  general  of  the  history  of  the  sister  country,  as  it  was  some- 
times styled,  that  he  never  yet  met  the  Englishman  who  knew 
that  it  was  not  until  the  year  1614,  in  the  reign  of  James  I, 
that  all  the  inhabitants  of  Ireland  became  King's  subjects. 
Having  thrown  forth  this  observation,  he  would  next  remark 
Ihat  more  blood  had  been  shed  in  Ireland  during  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  right  hon.  Secretary  than  during  that  of  the 
Earl  of  Stafford.  The  peasantry  were  slain  by  day — assassi- 
nated by  night — openly  by  soldiers  and  policemen  in  the  day — 
at  night  murdered  by  the  wretched  outcast  from  society,  the 
white  boy — a  man  most  commonly  converted  by  misery  and 
oppression  into  a  monster.  The  wantoness  with  which  life 
was  every  day  sacrificed  in  Ireland  was  appalling.  By  a  late 
post  it  appeared  that  a  farmer  in  Wexford  was  shot  by  the 
police,  in  passing  a  river,  because  he  refused  to  stop  in  obedience 
to  their  mandate.  In  Mayo,  the  other  day,  peasants  were 
shot  for  looking  hard  at  the  police.  In  the  Queen's  County, 
a  man  was  murdered  for  singing  a  song  which  sounded  un- 
pleasingly  in  the  ears  of  the  pohce.  And  there  was  the  affair 
at  Kanturk.  Really,  this  was  worth  a  moment's  consideration 
from  the  House.  Several  parishes,  it  appeared,  had  assembled 
for  the  purpose  of  peaceably  petitioning  for  relief  from  tithes. 
The  right  hon.  gentleman  had  since  put  down  all  meetings 
consisting  of  more  than  one  parish.  Well,  so  be  it ;  but,  as 
usual,  the  police  attended  this  meeting  in  coloured  clothes, 
and  mingled  with  the  peasantry.  The  soldiers,  too,  were  of 
course  brought  to  the  ground  with  guns  loaded,  bayonets  fixed, 
and  aU  things  in  a  state  of  warlike  preparation.  Now  mark — 
one  of  these  disguised  policemen  threw  a  stone  at  the  soldiers. 
Fortunately  the  people  did  not  follow  his  example,  and  the 
mihtary  displayed  that  temper  and  forbearance,  which,  in  the 
discharge  of  their  arduous  and  afflicting  duties  in  Ireland, 
had  distinguished  them  so  often.  The  man  was  seized — there 
were  seven  witnesses  to  prove  that  he  had  thrown  the  stone ; 
but  there  was  excessive  difficulty  in  getting  a  magistrate  to 
receive  the  depositions,  and  when  the  bill  of  indictment  came 
before  the  Grand  Jury  of  the  country  it  was  ignored.  That 
was  the  way  in  which  justice  was  administered  in  Ireland. 
Hear  another  story  : — A  party  of  police  went  out  lately — one 
of  them  was  drunk.  Hearing  the  approach  of  his  officer,  he 
went  into  a  cabin,  and  said  to  the  man  and  his  wife,  "  For 


270  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

God's  sake,  hide  me  ;  if  my  officer  sees  me  in  this  state  I  shall 
be  broken."  The  police  were  not  in  favour  with  the  people  ; 
still  they  could  not  find  it  in  their  hearts  to  refuse  him  ;  so 
the  woman  hid  him  in  the  bed  with  the  children.  The  party 
of  police  called  several  times,  asking  for  their  comrade.  The 
woman  said  she  knew  nothing  about  him.  At  length  she  took 
him  out  of  the  house,  and,  as  the  country  thereabouts  was 
rendered  dangerous  by  the  frequent  eyes  of  coal-pits,  she 
walked  upwards  of  a  mile  and  a  half  with  him,  to  put  him  on  a 
secure  road,  and  carried  his  gun  for  him  all  the  time.  When 
she  came  home,  however,  she  found  another  party  of  police 
in  her  house.  They  insisted  that  she  had  concealed  the  police- 
man, and  finally  seized  and  handcuffed  the  man  and  woman — 
actually  handcuffed  her.  There  was  no  doubt  here  ;  yet  there 
was  no  indignation  expressed.  A  Mrs.  Deacle  was  handcuffed, 
or  said  to  have  been  handcuffed — he  did  not  mean  to  say  she 
was  not — and  that  House,  and  indeed  all  England,  were  thrown 
into  uproar  by  it ;  but  the  poor  woman  to  whom  he  alluded 
was  merely  an  Irishwoman.  To  proceed,  there  was  some 
resistance  offered  by  the  people  who  witnessed  these  things, 
and  there  was,  of  course,  another  slaughter.  He  begged  to 
tell  the  gentlemen  of  England  this  question  was  one  of  life  and 
death.  If  they  employed  additional  force — more  military 
and  police — they  would  only  have  more  blood.  In  the  case 
to  which  he  had  alluded,  a  Coroner's  Jury  brought  in  a  verdict 
of  wilful  murder.  Now  he  accused  the  right  hon.  Secretary 
of  being  a  party  to  all  the  slaughter  at  the  other  side  of  the 
water ;  to  that  of  Newtownbarry,  for  example.  Here  he 
would  take  for  granted  that  the  yeomanry  were  right ;  so  be  it ; 
still  it  was  the  right  hon.  gentleman  and  Government  that  put 
into  the  yeoman's  hands  those  deadly  weapons  by  which  men, 
women,  and  children  were  slaughtered.  The  right  hon. 
Secretary  had  turned  Lord  Anglesey  into  Tithe  Proctor-General 
for  Ireland.  The  gallant  Governor  and  General  had  made  a 
right  glorious  campaign  ;  he  had  conquered  parish  after  parish, 
he  had  confiscated  the  petticoat  of  the  old  woman,  and  the 
porridge-pot  of  the  young  child  ;  he  had  converted  all  the 
barracks  into  receptacles  for  tithes,  the  soldiers  into  drivers  for 
them ;  he  had  scoured  the  country  with  cavalry  and  infantry, 
aye,  and  marines  ;  and  there  certainly  was  no  question  that 
wherever  he  had  thought  proper  to  apply  force  he  had  been 


O'CQNNELL  271 

successful.  Where,  then,  was  the  need  of  additional  force  in 
Ireland  ?  Additional  force,  he  contended,  would  only  be 
productive  of  additional  crime.  He  now  came  back  to  the 
question,  was  crime  the  offspring  of  agitation  or  misgoverment  ? 
It  was  proved  by  the  parliamentary  reports,  and  more  especi- 
ally by  the  last,  that  all  those  crimes  were  committed  by  the 
lowest  class  of  the  community,  and  that  there  was  no  connec- 
tion between  them  and  any  feeling  of  a  political  nature — nay, 
more,  he  would  defy  any  person  to  point  out  a  time  when 
there  was  political  agitation  in  Ireland  that  was  not  com- 
paratively free  from  crime.  He  would  give  them  an  instance 
of  tliis  fact.  There  was  no  period  in  which  Whiteboyism  was 
more  rife  in  Ireland  than  in  1821  and  1822.  The  system  had 
almost  assumed  the  character  of  actual  insurrection  ;  the 
parties  assembled  on  the  hills,  and  committed  murders  in  open 
day.  There  was  no  political  agitation  at  the  time.  On  the 
accession  of  George  IV,  and  particularly  after  his  visit  to  Ireland, 
relying  on  his  supposed  sentiment,  the  CathoHcs  determined 
to  wait  until  the  Monarch  expressed  his  own  spontaneous 
sentiments  on  the  subject  of  Catholic  emancipation.  They 
therefore  abstained,  at  that  time,  from  agitating  the  question. 
In  what  state  was  the  country  then  ?  There  were  eleven 
counties  proclaimed  under  the  Insurrection  Act,  and  seven 
more  were  about  to  be  placed  in  the  same  situation.  But  when 
the  Catholic  Association  was  formed,  and  when  the  principle 
of  agitation  had  been  in  full  force  for  ten  months,  then  dis- 
turbance ceased,  and  every  county  in  Ireland  was  quieted. 
That  was  a  positive  fact,  and  he  challenged  the  gentlemen 
opposite  to  contradict  it.  Let  those  who  cheered  so  loudly, 
when  agitation  was  mentioned  as  the  cause  of  insubordination, 
bear  this  point  in  mind — that  crime  was  widely  extended 
when  there  was  no  agitation,  but  that  it  was  repressed  when 
agitation  prevailed.  When  he  made  this  statement,  was  he 
speaking  to  the  deaf  adder  ?  was  he  addressing  himself  to  men 
who  would  not  listen  ;  or  who,  if  they  did  listen,  would  not 
take  a  lesson  from  the  past  with  respect  to  the  course  which 
they  ought  to  pursue  for  the  future  ?  They  might  outvote 
him  against  Ireland,  but  they  could  not  shake  those  truths. 
He  was  speaking  for  Ireland,  for  unhappy  Ireland.  They 
might  sneer  at,  or  taunt  him  as  the  agitator  ;  but,  conscious 
that  he  was  performing  a  sacred  duty,  he  could  laugh  at  all 


272  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

that  now.  What  became  of  this  argument  founded  on  agita- 
tion,  when  he  proved,  that  when  they  did  not  agitate,  multi- 
tudes of  crimes  were  perpetrated  ;  but  that,  when  agitation 
prevailed,  crime  ceased  ?  What  was  the  reason  of  this  ? 
It  was  because  the  Irish  were  a  shrewd,  a  calculating  and 
observant  people.  Seven  centuries  of  misgovernment  and 
oppression  had  taught  them  to  understand  the  signs  of  the 
times  ;  and  when  they  saw  any  prospect,  however  remote,  of 
effecting  a  beneficial  change  for  their  country  they  seized 
on  it  with  avidity,  and  it  absorbed  every  other  feeling  and 
sentiment.  But  why  did  ministers  call  for  additional  force  ? 
Had  they  not  already  put  down  every  tithe  meeting  ?  Had 
they  not  dispersed  them  at  the  point  of  the  bayonet  ?  Let 
every  reasonable  man  examine  the  system  which  they  wished 
to  uphold,  and  say  whether  it  was  a  just  or  fair  one.  In  his 
parish,  there  were  12,300  and  odd  inhabitants,  of  whom 
seventy-five  were  Protestants.  Now,  was  it  not  reasonable 
that  the  12,225  Roman  Catholics  should  resist  a  system  which 
impoverished  them,  to  benefit  so  miserable  a  minority  ?  He 
again  contended  that  increase  of  crime  had  followed  and  would 
follow  increase  of  force.  Yet  such  was  the  project  of  this 
liberal  Government.  He  would  say  that  there  never  was  such 
a  persecuting  government ;  they  had  prosecuted  the  Press, 
the  people,  and  even  the  priests.  They  had  done  nothing  to 
restore  the  country  to  tranquillity.  Had  Ireland  any  real 
grievances,  was  the  question  which  they  had  to  decide.  What 
cared  he  for  their  laugh,  or  their  taunt,  or  their  sneer  ?  He 
boldly  avowed,  in  spite  of  laugh,  taunt  and  sneer,  that  while 
Ireland  had  grievances  to  complain  of  he  would  agitate  to 
redress  them.  This  was  what  Englishmen  did  to  achieve 
reform  ;  and  he  pursuing  the  same  course,  would  agitate  as 
long  as  he  had  the  power,  and  found  that  there  was  a  necessity 
for  such  a  line  of  action.  An  unreformed  Parliament  had  passed 
two  Acts  with  respect  to  Ireland  which  an  Algerine  Govern- 
ment would  not  have  sanctioned.  A  Reformed  Parliament,  it 
appeared,  would  be  called  on  to  pass  another,  to  put  an  end 
to  agitation.  But  he  would  tell  them  that  it  would  be  many 
and  many  a  day  before  they  could  frame  and  carry  an  Act 
to  effect  that  object.  Almost  all  the  measures  adopted  with 
reference  to  Ireland  led,  more  or  less,  to  the  shedding  of  blood 
— the  blood  of  an  honest,  a  religious,  a  warm-hearted,  a  good 


O'CONNELL  273 

people.  More  murders  were  committed  in  that  country  than 
in  any  other  place  on  the  face  of  the  earth.  The  people  here 
knew  little  of  Ireland.  The  Whiteboy,  driven  to  wretchedness 
and  desperation,  thrown  an  unwilling  outlaw  on  the  commission 
of  crime — even  his  crimes,  the  offspring  of  adverse  circum- 
stances, could  not  be  advanced  as  an  argument  against  the 
general  good  and  virtuous  feeling  of  the  Irish  people.  When 
that  people  had  so  many  grounds  of  complaint,  had  they  not 
a  right  to  agitate  ?  In  the  first  place,  he  complained  of  the 
magistracy  of  Ireland.  He  would  suppose  that,  by  conquest 
or  otherwise,  the  French  became  masters  of  this  country  and 
estabhshed  a  religion  different  from  that  which  accorded  with 
the  feelings  of  the  people.  The  thing,  he  knew,  was  impossible, 
but  he  used  the  supposition  in  order  to  show  more  clearly  the 
situation  of  Ireland.  Suppose  a  magistracy  was  established 
here  professing  a  religion  different  from  that  of  the  people 
at  large — armed  with  arbitrary  power — having  authority  to 
inflict  fine  and  imprisonment,  and  against  the  members  of 
which  it  was  hopeless  to  seek  redress — what  feelings  would  such 
a  state  of  things  generate  ?  In  Ireland,  since  the  union,  so 
many  forms  had  been  introduced  in  the  law  (and  they  formed 
some  of  the  blessings  which  flowed  from  that  measure),  that 
he  defied  any  man,  however  injured,  to  maintain  an  action 
successfully  against  a  magistrate.  He  need  not  weary  himself 
and  the  House  by  showing  that  the  magistracy  of  Ireland 
was  on  a  bad  footing.  It  was  admitted  by  the  noble  Lord 
and  his  colleagues.  They  had  all  spoken  of  the  necessity  of  a 
revision  of  the  magistracy  of  Ireland.  Even  the  right  hon. 
Baronet,  the  member  for  Tamworth,  ^  had  expressed  himself 
in  favour  of  a  revision  of  the  magistracy.  When  application 
was  made  to  Lord  Manners  to  restore  a  dismissed  magistrate, 
he  observed  :  "I  have  made  you  the  best  retribution  in  my 
power  by  again  placing  you  in  the  Commission  ;  but  the  last 
thing  the  King  said  to  me  when  I  became  Chancellor,  was, 
'  My  Lord  Manners,  look  particularly  to  the  magistracy.*  " 
A  sort  of  revision  took  place  at  that  time,  and  a  comical  revision 
it  was.  A  number  of  magistrates  were  struck  off — all  those 
who  had  died  were  struck  off — some  military  ofiicers,  not  in 
the  country,  were  struck  off — some  Roman  Cathohcs  were 
struck  off — and  several  improper  persons  were  struck  off. 
1  Sir  Robert  Peel. 

i8— (2170) 


274  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

But  this  did  not  last.  Lord  Manners  knew  nothing  of  the 
Irish  magistracy,  and  there  was  a  superior  influence  at  the 
Castle,  by  which  the  old  abuses  were  continued.  There  was 
no  doubt,  the  fact  could  not  be  denied,  that  there  were  a  great 
many  improper  persons  in  the  Commission  of  the  Peace  in 
Ireland  ;  the  fact  was  recorded  in  the  evidence  of  General 
Bourke  before  a  committee  of  that  House.  At  the  time  that 
the  present  Administration  came  into  power  he  and  others 
called  for  a  revision  of  the  magistracy  in  Ireland.  The  answer 
then  given  to  them  by  the  right  hon.  Secretary  opposite  was, 
that  six  months  after  the  late  King's  death,  the  Commissions 
of  all  the  magistrates  in  Ireland  would  have  to  be  renewed, 
and  that  the  Government  would  then  take  care  that  none  but 
proper  persons  should  be  put  into  the  Commission  of  the  Peace 
in  Ireland  ;  that  renewal  of  the  Commissions  of  the  magistracy 
had  since  taken  place,  and  he  should  like  to  know  what  im- 
proper persons  had  been  excluded  from  the  Commission  of 
the  Peace  there  ?  He  could,  on  the  contrary,  enumerate 
instances  of  several  improper  persons  that  had  been  left  in 
it,  and  left  in  it,  too,  from  party  motives,  and  from  partisan 
views  and  objects.  The  right  hon.  gentleman  had  taken 
especial  care  that  to  such  persons  the  Commission  of  the  Peace 
should  be  continued,  while  many  most  respectable,  most 
worthy,  and  well-qualified  individuals,  were  excluded  from  it 
in  various  parts  of  Ireland.  Such  was  the  mode  in  which  the 
right  hon.  gentleman  governed  that  unfortunate  country. 
The  right  hon.  gentleman,  during  his  short  career  in  Ireland, 
had  achieved  that  which  had  never  been  accomplished  before 
— he  had  contrived  to  make  the  whole  people  of  Ireland 
unanimous,  for  all  persons  there  concurred  in  considering  him 
most  unfit  for  the  government  of  that  country.  When  Ireland 
in  former  times  revolted  against  oppression,  Henry  VIII 
swore  lustily,  that  if  Ireland  would  not  be  governed  by  the 
Earl  of  Kildare,  the  Earl  of  Kildare  should  ruin  Ireland.  Was 
that  the  principle  now  to  be  enforced  ?  Was  that  the  line  of 
policy  that  was  now  to  be  pursued  ?  Such,  at  all  events, 
would  be  the  effect  of  the  Address  that  night  submitted  for 
their  adoption.  The  power  of  the  magistracy  in  Ireland,  as 
regarded  the  lower  classes  there,  was  omnipotent,  especially 
since  the  introduction  of  the  Petty  Sessions  ;  and  they  exercised 
that  power  with  the  most  complete  impunity.     In  order  to 


O'CONNELL  275 

attach  responsibility  to  the  exercise  of  power,  you  must  isolate 
that  power  ;  but  the  magistrates  at  the  Petty  Sessions  in 
Ireland,  by  acting  together  and  in  a  bulk,  rendered  the  exercise 
of  their  power  entirely  irresponsible.  The  publicity  of  their 
proceedings  at  Petty  Sessions  was  salutary,  but  their  combina- 
tion rendered  it  impossible  for  the  poor  man  to  obtain  redress 
for  the  injustice  which  he  might  suffer  at  their  hands,  and, 
with  the  aid  of  the  Trespass  Act,  it  was  in  their  power  to  inflict 
grievous  injustice  upon  the  lower  orders  of  Ireland.  They 
heard  a  great  deal  of  the  crimes  that  were  committed  in  Ire- 
land, but  such  crimes  were,  in  most  instances,  to  be  traced  to 
the  injustice  effected  upon  the  poor  there  through  the  means 
of  such  Acts  of  Parhament  as  that  he  had  just  referred  to — 
they  were  the  wild  justice  of  revenge  to  which  the  poor  v/ere 
driven  when  all  other  modes  of  obtaining  redress  failed  them. 
By  means  of  the  Trespass  Act  the  magistrates  were  enabled 
to  determine  every  right  of  the  poor  man — every  right  of  his 
connected  with  his  land  and  his  property.  By  means  of  that 
Act  the  magistrates  at  Sessions  could  even  try  questions  of 
title.  He  had  known  an  instance  of  a  man  who  had  a  good 
equitable  case — and  in  a  civil  bill  ejectment  case  an  equitable 
was  as  good  as  a  legal  defence — and  yet  the  magistrates  fined 
him  £5  as  a  trespasser.  Though  the  Statute  said  that  they 
should  not  try  rights,  yet  the  effect  of  their  decisions  in  such 
cases  was  actually  to  try  them.  He  might  be  told  that  the 
poor  man,  in  the  instance  he  had  mentioned,  had  his  remedy  ; 
that  he  could  get  rid  of  the  decision  in  question  by  bringing 
an  action  ;  but  the  expense  of  such  a  proceeding  rendered  that 
remedy  totally  unattainable  to  him.  The  very  cost  of  a 
latitat  was  probably  more  money  than  a  poor  man  ever  had 
in  his  possession  at  one  and  the  same  time  in  the  whole  course 
of  his  life.  In  the  way  he  had  just  stated,  the  determination  of 
all  the  rights  of  the  peasantry  of  Ireland  was  put  into  the 
power  of  the  magistracy  of  that  country.  He  did  not  mean  to 
say  that  all  the  magistrates  in  Ireland  were  open  to  the  accusa- 
tions which  he  had  thought  it  his  duty  to  prefer  against  them 
as  a  body  ;  he  would  not  even  accuse  the  majority  of  them 
of  the  malpractices  of  which  he  had  spoken  ;  but  this  he  would 
say,  that  a  large  class  of  the  magistrates  of  Ireland,  and  the 
most  influential  among  them,  too,  were  swayed  by  party  zeal 
(the  zeal  of  a  party  opposed  to  the  mass  of  the  people)  and 


276  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

influenced  by  factious  motives  in  the  discharge  of  their 
duties.  Since  the  commencement  of  Lord  Anglesey's  Adminis- 
tration in  Ireland  there  had  been  thirty-four  stipendiary 
magistrates  acting  in  that  country ;  of  these  thirty-four, 
Lord  Anglesey  had  nominated  twenty-six,  and  in  such  a  country 
as  Ireland,  the  large  majority  of  its  inhabitants  Catholic, 
especial  care  was  taken  that  not  a  single  Catholic  should  be 
amongst  those  twenty-six  stipendiary  magistrates.  There 
were  thirty-two  sub-inspectors  of  police  in  Ireland  ;  he  did 
not  know  how  many  of  them  had  been  appointed  by  the  present 
Administration  ;  but  this  he  did  know,  that  there  was  not  a 
single  Catholic  amongst  them.  There  were  five  Inspectors- 
general  of  Police,  and  there  was  not  a  Catholic  amongst  them. 
He  would  ask  them,  with  such  facts  before  them,  could  they 
be  surprised  at  the  present  situation  of  Ireland  ?  With  such 
real  grievances  affecting  the  people  of  that  country,  where 
was  the  necessity  of  attributing  its  disturbed  and  discontented 
state  to  the  efforts  of  agitators  ?  Before  the  Parliament  was 
reformed — before  the  corrupt  and  borough-mongering  House 
of  Commons  had  been  got  rid  of — many  rational  and  well- 
disposed  men  in  Ireland,  who  were  equally  indignant  as  the 
rest  of  their  countrymen  at  the  wrongs  and  injustice  inflicted 
on  their  country,  refused  to  join  in  demanding  a  Repeal  of 
the  Union  ;  saying  that  they  ought  to  wait  to  see  what  the  first 
Reformed  Parliament  would  do  for  Ireland.  Well,  they  waited 
to  see  what  the  first  Reformed  Parliament  would  do  for  Ireland, 
and  what  would  be  their  feelings  when  the  brutal  and  the  bloody 
Speech  which  had  been  that  day  read,  found  its  way  to  Ireland  ? 

Lord  John  Russell  rose  to  order.  In  consequence  of  the 
words  which  had  been  just  used  by  the  hon.  and  learned 
gentleman,  he  (Lord  John  Russell)  rose  to  request  that  the 
hon.  and  learned  gentleman's  words  should  be  taken  down. 

Mr.  O'Connell  said,  that  if  he  was  out  of  order  in  the  observa- 
tions which  he  had  been  making,  if  he  was  irregular  in  the 
words  which  he  had  been  employing,  he  would  desist  from 
using  them.  He  was  determined  to  give  no  one  an  opportunity 
of  acting  against  him.  He  would  take  the  noble  Lord's  hint. 
Strong  language  was,  of  course,  not  justifiable  when  such 
topics  were  under  consideration.     It  ought  to  be 

" in  bondsman's  key 

With  bated  breath,  and  whispering  humbleness," 


O'CONNELL  W 

that  he  should  speak  when  speaking  of  Ireland  and  her  wrongs. 
It  was  not  a  **  bloody  speech  " — oh,  no  !  Did  the  noble  Lord 
object  to  the  word  "  brutal,"  too  ? 

Lord  John  Russell  said,  that  he  did  not  object  to  any  words 
which  the  hon.  and  learned  gentleman  might  think  fit  to  use 
respecting  the  Address  which  was  proposed  in  that  House ; 
but  he  did  object  to  the  words  "  bloody  speech  "  being  applied 
to  a  speech  which  had  been  so  lately  pronounced  by  his  Majesty 
in  person  in  the  other  House  of  Parliament. 

Mr.  O'Connell  said,  that  the  noble  Lord's  objection  raised 
a  great  constitutional  question,  from  trjdng  which  he  would  not 
shrink  ;  it  was  a  question  that  concerned  one  of  the  most 
important  privileges  of  Parliament.  If  he  were  wrong,  he 
would  not  persevere  in  the  course  he  was  pursuing  ;  but  if  he 
were  right,  he  would  not  retract  a  word  which  he  had  apphed 
to  the  Speech,  considering  it  the  speech  of  Ministers  ;  for  in 
doing  so,  he  conceived  that  he  only  exercised  the  constitutional 
privileges  of  a  member  of  the  British  House  of  Commons.  He 
had  spoken  of  the  Speech  as  the  speech  of  his  Majesty's  minis- 
ters, for  as  such  all  King's  Speeches  had  been  hitherto,  and  for 
obvious  constitutional  purposes,  considered.  If  he  was  now 
to  be  told,  that  he  must  speak  of  it  as  the  Speech  of  the  King, 
no  words  regarding  it  should  escape  from  his  mouth  but  those 
of  the  most  profound  respect  for  his  Majesty's  Crown  and 
person ;  but  if  he  was  justified  in  considering  it,  as  such  docu- 
ments had  been  always  hitherto  considered,  as  the  Speech  of 
his  Majesty's  ministers,  and  for  which  they  alone  were  respon- 
sible, words  were  not  strong  enough  to  express  his  abhorrence 
of  it. 

The  Speaker  said,  that  having  been  appealed  to  upon  this 
point,  he  must  say  that  the  opinion  expressed  by  the  hon.  and 
learned  gentleman  was  perfectly  correct — namely,  that  in  a 
constitutional  point  of  view,  and  for  constitutional  purposes, 
the  Speech  of  his  Majesty  was  usually  considered  the  Speech 
of  his  Majesty's  ministers,  and,  for  that  Speech,  it  was  true 
that  his  Majesty's  ministers  were  alone  responsible  ;  but  it 
appeared  to  him  that  that  was  altogether  beside  the  question 
which  had  now  been  raised  for  their  consideration.  He  would 
put  it  to  the  hon.  and  learned  gentleman,  whether,  if  order 
and  decency  were  to  be  preserved  in  the  public  debates  of  that 
House,  they  could  possibly  be  preserved  consistently  with  the 


278  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

employment  of  such  language,  whether  applied  to  the  speech 
of  the  King's  ministers,  or  to  a  speech  just  delivered  by  his 
Majesty  himself  in  person*? 

Mr.  O'Connell  said,  that  the  constitutional  question  having 
been  decided  as  he  expected,  he  should,  in  deference  to  the 
admonition  of  the  Speaker  in  regard  to  preserving  order  in 
the  debates,  not  proceed  further  in  the  course  of  observations 
which  he  had  thought  it  his  duty  to  make  upon  the  ministerial 
document.  He  should  now  proceed  to  advert  to  the  other 
grievances  of  which  Ireland  had  to  complain.  He  would  ask 
the  right  hon.  gentleman  (Mr.  Stanley),  did  he  think  that  the 
Bench  of  Justice  in  Ireland  was  such  as  to  deserve  the  confi- 
dence of  the  people  of  that  country  ?  Did  the  right  hon. 
gentleman  know  the  history  of  that  country,  even  for  the  last 
twenty  or  thirty  years,  and  the  manner  in  which  the  judicial 
situations  had  been  filled  up  there  ?  Did  he  know  that  during 
that  period  the  enemies  of  liberty  and  the  enemies  of  Ireland 
were  in  power,  and  that  it  was  with  their  own  political  sup- 
porters and  partisans  that  they  filled  up  the  judicial  situations 
in  Ireland  ?  Was  he  aware  that  persons  had  been  made  judges 
in  Ireland  for  no  other  reason  than  because  they  had  voted  for 
the  Legislative  Union,  and  with  no  other  qualification  to  fit 
them  for  the  office  ?  Did  he  know  that  during  twenty  years, 
promotion  at  the  Irish  Bar  was  withheld  from  any  man  that 
signed  a  petition  in  favour  of  Catholic  Emancipation  ?  But 
when  the  persons  which  such  a  system  had  promoted  to  the 
bench  retired  from  it — when  Lord  Chief  Justice  Downes,  Mr. 
Baron  George,  and  others  of  that  stamp  left  it,  and  when  men 
of,  business  and  professional  eminence  were  placed  upon  it, 
it  was  thought  by  him  (Mr.  O'Connell),  and  by  others,  that 
justice  would  at  length  be  properly  administered  in  Ireland. 
He  was  sorry  to  say  that  such  anticipations  had  not  been  ful- 
filled. He  was  willing  to  make  every  allowance — he  was  not 
for  going  too  far — but  Europe  and  European  civilization  should 
be  made  aware  of  the  fact,  that  there  existed  no  confidence  in 
the  administration  of  justice  in  Ireland.  Was  it  consistent 
with  that  unsullied  purity  w^hich  ought  to  belong  to  the  judicial 
character,  that  judges  should  have  their  families  quartered 
upon  the  public  purse,  and  that,  as  regular  as  the  quarter  came 
round,  their  applications  should  be  made  to  the  Treasury  for 
payment  ?     His  Majesty's  present  ministers  had  selected  from 


O'CONNELL  279 

amongst  their  most  inveterate  enemies  an  individual  to  fill 
a  judicial  situation  in  Ireland  (that  of  Chief  Baron  of  the 
Exchequer),  and  should  they  be  surprised  that  that  learned 
judge  left  the  bench,  to  go  and  vote  against  ministers  at  one 
of  the  late  elections  ?  The  learned  individual  to  whom  he 
alluded  was  about  as  old  as  the  learned  judge  (Chief  Baron 
O'Grady)  whom  he  succeeded  on  the  bench.  He  was  undoub- 
tedly a  man  of  talent,  but  of  the  strongest  poHtical  feelings — 
so  strong,  indeed,  that  they  induced  him  to  go  from  the  judicial 
bench  to  vote  against  the  friends  of  his  Majesty's  ministers. 
They  had  also  appointed  Mr.  Doherty  Chief  Justice  of  the  Court 
of  Common  Pleas  in  Ireland.  It  might  be  said,  perhaps,  that 
he  (Mr.  O'Connell)  entertained  strong  personal  feelings  against 
that  learned  individual.  He  was  sure  that  no  one  who  knew 
him  would  say  so  ;  but  this  he  would  say  of  Chief  Justice 
Doherty,  that  he  had  a  great  deal  of  common  sense,  and  that 
he  managed  himself  upon  the  bench,  with  only  one  or  two 
exceptions,  much  better  than  any  of  his  brother  judges.  But 
then  Mr.  Doherty  never  had  fifteen  briefs  in  any  one  term 
during  his  life,  and  yet  they  made  him  a  Chief  Justice.  He 
had  already  glanced  at  the  mode  in  which  judges,  and  the 
relations  of  judges,  were  paid  and  remunerated  in  Ireland. 
The  subject  was  one  that  he  thought  was  well  worthy  the 
consideration  of  the  first  Reformed  ParUament.  It  was  very 
well  to  talk  about  the  independence  of  judges.  It  was  true 
that  they  were  independent  of  fear,  but  were  they  independent 
of  hope  ?  They  could  not  take  them  off  the  bench,  but  they 
might  still  further  reward  them  ;  they  could  not  un- judge 
them,  but  they  might  enrich  them  and  their  families.  Under 
such  circumstances,  that  House  would  not  be  doing  justice 
to  the  country,  unless  it  passed  a  law  (he  would  not  say  that 
such  a  law  was  wanted  in  England,  as  he  did  not  know  the 
state  of  things  here  ;  but  he  would  assert  that  it  was  absolutely 
essential  in  Ireland  to  restore  a  confidence  in  the  administra- 
tion of  justice,  there)  enacting  that  there  should  be  no  such 
mode  as  that  which  existed  for  paying  judges.  They  should 
not  see  the  Government  giving  briefs  to  judges'  sons  who  had 
no  other  clients — they  should  not  see  the  Government  employing 
a  judge's  sons  and  relations  when  no  other  persons  thought 
them  worth  employing  in  the  most  trivial  causes — they  should 
not  see  judicial  independence  thus  bartered  for  at  the  public 


280  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

expense.  There  was  another  branch  of  the  administration 
of  justice  in  Ireland  that  he  thought  the  people  of  Ireland  had 
much  to  complain  of — he  meant  the  jury  system  in  that  country. 
Did  they  think  that  the  people  of  Ireland  should  be  content 
with  the  jury  system  that  existed  there  ?  The  noble  Lord 
(Lord  Althorp)  had  promised  him  in  the  last  Session,  that  the 
Government  would  support  the  Jury  Bill  in  the  House  of 
Lords  ;  but  the  Government  broke  their  word  on  that  occasion 
— the  promise  was  not  kept.  And  what  was  that  Bill  to  give 
to  Ireland  ?  It  merely  went  to  extend  to  Ireland  that  which 
had  been  law  in  England  for  the  last  seven  years.  They 
talked  of  the  Union,  and  of  the  benefit  that  it  was  to  Ireland, 
but  why,  he  would  ask,  did  they  refuse  it  the  benefit  of  the 
Union  in  that  instance.  Why  did  they  not  make  the  same 
law  in  Ireland  that  they  made  law  in  England  ?  Was  he 
to  be  told  that  such  a  law  was  not  necessary  in  Ireland — that 
it  was  not  required  there — that  the  administration  of  justice 
in  that  country  was  so  absolutely  pure — that  party  passions 
and  political  feelings  interfered  so  little  to  corrupt  its  source 
or  impede  its  progress,  that  such  a  fair  mode  of  selecting  a 
Special  Jury  as  that  of  the  ballot,  which  had  now  been  in 
existence  for  seven  years  in  England,  had  not  been  demanded 
on  account  of  the  excellent  mode  of  selecting  j  urors  at  present 
practised  in  Ireland  ?  But  the  law  of  laist  year,  which  was 
indeed  a  poor  boon,  for  it  was  not  to  come  into  operation  for 
another  year,  was  rejected.  Poor,  however,  as  it  was,  and 
though  the  remedy  which  it  would  afford  was  at  best  but  a  pro- 
spective one,  it  would,  had  it  been  passed,  have  been  productive 
of  beneficial  effects,  for  bad  jurors  would  have  ceased  their 
malpractices,  seeing  that  the  time  would  be  near  at  hand  when 
they  would  be  responsible  to  the  pubUc  for  their  conduct. 
But,  spite  of  the  promise  of  the  noble  Lord,  that  law  was  thrown 
out  in  the  House  of  Lords.  He  had  another  objection  to  urge 
against  the  jury  system  in  Ireland,  as  it  affected  the  adminis- 
tration of  justice  in  that  country — he  alluded  to  the  power 
which  the  Crown  had  of  regulating  the  selection  of  juries  there. 
He  had  been  himself  a  living  witness  of  the  abuse.  He  knew 
of  a  case  where,  out  of  a  panel  of  upwards  of  800  names,  not 
above  twenty  could  be  taken  to  find  the  simple  fact  that,  in 
the  instance  of  a  man  who  had  been  ridden  down  by  twenty 
lancers,  and  who  then  was  taken  prisoner  and  committed  to 


O'CONNELL  2S1 

prison  because  he  had  been  so  ridden  down — twenty  could  not 
be  found,  he  repeated,  to  find  that  in  such  a  case  a  common 
assault  had  been  committed.  The  hon.  and  learned  gentleman 
then  complained  of  the  great  power  enjoyed  by  the  Crown  in 
the  selection  of  jurors.  By  the  ancient  Statute  Law  the  Crown 
could  not  permanently  challenge  a  juror ;  but  the  judges 
soon  arranged  this.  The  Crown  could  set  a  juror  aside  ;  and, 
in  Ireland,  at  least,  this  was  in  practice  equivalent  to  a  per- 
manent challenge,  because  it  was  the  custom,  supposing  the 
panel  to  be  exhausted,  not  to  read  over  the  names  of  those  set 
aside,  but  to  order  the  Sheriff  to  enlarge  the  panel.  The 
practice  of  packing  juries  on  this  principle  was  carried  to  an 
amazing  extent  in  Ireland.  They  all,  he  said,  read  with 
affright  of  the  crimes  committed  by  the  peasantry  in  Ireland  ; 
but  were  they  to  be  astonished  at  it  when  they  knew  of  the 
mode  in  which  justice  was  administered  in  that  country  ? 
Who  did  they  think  was  the  foreman  upon  the  jury  in  Dublin, 
who,  the  other  day,  there  tried  Messrs.  Costello  and  Reynolds 
for  an  alleged  offence  in  regard  to  the  tithe  system  ?  The 
foreman  was  a  gentleman  who  had  not  very  long  since  figured 
before  a  committee  of  that  House — a  Mr.  Long,  a  coach-maker 
in  Dublin,  a  furious  partisan  of  that  faction  of  Ireland  which 
hated  the  present  Government,  no  doubt,  but  hated  the  people 
still  more.  He  would  quote  as  instances,  in  corroboration  of 
his  arguments  of  the  Crown's  challenging  jurors,  the  practice 
at  the  late  assizes  at  Mullingar,  and  at  Cork.  These  were,  he 
said,  the  complaints  that  he  had  to  make  on  the  part  of  Ireland. 
They  had  no  confidence  in  the  bench  there.  The  juries  were 
selected  from  the  bitter  enemies  of  the  country,  and  the  present 
Government  had  instituted  the  greatest  number  of  prosecu- 
tions that  any  Government  had  ever  instituted  in  that  country. 
He  might  be  accused  of  agitating  Ireland,  but  the  agitation 
and  the  discontent  of  Ireland  were  to  be  laid  at  the  door  of 
that  Government  which  had  instituted  such  countless  prosecu- 
tions, and  that  had  conducted  them  in  a  spirit  worthy  of  the 
Star  Chamber  itself.  Was  it  not  enough  to  send  the  proprietor 
of  the  Waterford  Chronicle  to  gaol  for  twelve  months,  together 
with  the  imposition  of  a  pecuniary  fine,  without  sending  the 
printer  of  that  paper,  for  the  same  offence,  to  prison  ;  thus 
consigning  to  punishment  the  man  who  had  only  acted  as  a 
mechanical  agent  in  disseminating  the  alleged  libel,  and  who 


282  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

would  have  been  as  ready  to  set  up,  in  the  way  of  his  trade, 
an  eulogium  upon  the  Church  in  Ireland,  as  he  had  been  to 
set  up  an  attack  upon  it,  or  upon  the  Irish  Government  ? 
Was  it  just  that  such  a  man  should  have  been  sent  to  rot  in 
a  prison  ?  It  was  the  Government  that  had  commenced  the 
agitation  with  regard  to  the  tithe  system,  by  endeavouring 
to  put  down  the  public  meetings  on  that  subject.  They  had 
endeavoured  to  do  so  by  a  construction  of  the  law  of  conspiracy 
that  would  never  have  been  endured  in  England.  There  was, 
as  all  good  lawyers  knew,  nothing  so  doubtful  as  the  law  with 
regard  to  conspiracy.  The  words  of  one  of  our  writers  on  the 
subject  was,  that  there  were  few  things  so  doubtful  as  that 
portion  of  the  Common  Law  under  which  the  combination  of 
several  persons  together  became  illegal.  In  fact,  the  thing 
was  so  exceedingly  doubtful  that  it  was  laid  down  by  the  late 
Lord  Ellenborough  that  nothing  but  the  evidence  of  something 
false — falsi,  of  some  falsehood,  would  render  a  combination 
of  the  kind  illegal.  It  was  true  that  that  decision  had  been 
since  overturned,  for,  in  this  country,  the  judges  made  the 
law,  but  at  all  events  the  circumstance  showed  that  there  was 
nothing  more  doubtful  than  the  law  as  it  related  to  conspiracy, 
seeing  that  the  first  judges  in  the  land  differed  as  to  what  it 
was  ;  and  yet  this  was  the  law  that  the  Government  of  Ireland 
strained  to  the  most  unwarrantable  extent  to  achieve  its  pur- 
poses !  Would  it  be  believed  that  the  Government  of  Ireland 
preferred  under  that  law  indictments  against  persons  for 
exciting  to  conspiracy  ?  Would  it  be  credited  that  the  printer 
of  the  Tipperary  Free  Press  had  been  arrested  three  times  in 
the  same  day,  and  held  to  bail  for  articles  *'  tending  to  excite 
to  conspiracy  "  ?  Conspiracy  was  itself  a  constructive  crime 
— the  exciting  to  conspiracy,  the  second  construction  of  it, 
under  which  the  Government  indicted,  was  carrying  it  to  an 
extent  that  had  never  been  heard  of  before,  and  that  assuredly 
would  not  have  been  borne  in  this  country.  It  was,  however, 
good  law  enough  for  Ireland,  perhaps,  and  it  was  well  worthy 
of  the  Whig  Reforming  Government  of  that  country.  Another 
of  the  evils  of  which  Ireland  had  to  complain,  was  the  Grand 
Jury  system.  They  were  told  that  that  system  was  to  be 
revised,  but  it  was  not  until  it  was  loudly  called  for,  that  a 
remedy  was  about  to  be  apphed  to  that  monstrous  evil.  They 
had  yet  to  see  whether  the  remedy  to  be  proposed  would  be  an 


O'COKNELL  283 

efficient  one.  The  power  possessed  of  imposing  taxes  by  that 
self-appointed  body  was  immense — a  body,  the  majority  of 
which  generally  consisted  of  the  agents  of  absentees  ;  and  it 
was  well  known  in  Ireland  that  there  were  good  roads  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  Grand  Jurors'  residences,  while  it  was  gener- 
ally the  reverse  elsewhere.  The  taxation  imposed  by  that 
body  reached  the  enormous  amount  of  £940,000  a  year,  the 
sixteenth  part  of  the  entire  landed  revenue  of  Ireland,  and 
Is.  5d.  on  the  entire  rental  of  the  country.  It  was  in  the  hands 
of  such  men — men  connected  with  one  party  in  Ireland,  that 
such  enormous  power  was  vested  ;  it  was  from  amongst  that 
body  that  Sheriffs  were  generally  selected  ;  and  here  he  had 
to  remark  that  there  was  but  one  Catholic  sheriff  appointed 
this  year.  The  grievance  of  the  Grand  Jury  system  as  it 
existed  was  acknowledged  by  the  right  hon.  gentleman  (Mr. 
Stanley)  himself,  he  having  already  stated  that  he  had  a  remedy 
to  propose,  it  was,  therefore,  a  grievance  that  could  not  be 
attributed  to  the  agitators  in  that  country.  The  right  hon. 
gentleman,  he  believed,  intended  to  bring  in  a  Bill  to  remedy 
that  system,  but  unless  that  bill  was  founded  on  the  principle 
of  representation,  the  proposed  remedy  would  be  inefficient. 
He  was  ready  to  maintain  that  no  man  ought  to  be  taxed, 
unless  through  his  representatives  ;  and  upon  such  grounds, 
he  would  contend  that  the  office  of  Grand  Juror  should  be 
made  elective.  No  doubt  they  would  vote  this  Address 
to-night  by  a  large  majority,  and  then,  forsooth,  they  would 
tell  the  people  of  Ireland  to  look  to  the  Reformed  House  of 
Commons  for  justice  and  protection.  Corporations  constituted 
another  great  grievance  in  Ireland.  He  was  sure  the  right 
hon.  member  for  Cambridge  (Mr.  Spring  Rice)  would  not  deny 
the  fact — he  was  sure  he  would  not  deny  that  they  possessed 
enormous  and  unjust  monopolies.  The  Reform  Bill  had,  no 
doubt,  done  much  to  remedy  the  abuses  of  corporations,  but 
to  reach  the  root  of  the  evil  they  must  go  still  deeper.  The 
Corporation  of  Cork,  for  instance,  one  of  those  close  corpora- 
tions, possessed  a  revenue  of  upwards  of  £70,000  a  year — a 
revenue  greater  than  the  cost  of  the  general  government  of  the 
United  States  of  America.  The  bigotry  and  intolerance  of  those 
corporations  were  well  known.  Though  CathoUcs  had  been 
for  years  admissible  to  them,  few  had  been  admitted  in  Cork, 
and  none  had  ever  been  allowed  to  discharge  the  duties  of  any 


284  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

of  its  officers.  The  Corporation  of  Dublin,  too,  continued  a 
close  monopoly,  from  which  Catholics  were  systematically 
excluded.  They  might  taunt  Catholics  with  intolerance  and 
bigotry,  but  he  would  defy  them  to  produce  any  such  instances 
of  either  intolerance  or  bigotry,  in  a  Catholic  assembly,  under 
a  Catholic  constitutional  government.  True  it  was,  that  in 
Catholic  States,  where  the  Church  was  wedded  to  the  State, 
the  national  offspring  were  intolerance  and  exclusion  ;  but 
under  Catholic  Liberal  governments,  no  such  intolerance  as 
that  exhibited  by  the  Corporation  of  Dublin  was  to  be  found — 
into  which  corporation,  though  Catholics  had  been  admissible 
for  forty  years,  not  one  had  been  admitted  ;  bigotry  thus 
proving  itself  superior  to  law  and  Parliament.  It  might  be 
said,  that  it  was  wasting  the  public  time  to  talk  of  corporations  ; 
but  let  it  be  remembered  that  corporations  elected  sheriffs, 
and  in  Dublin  the  sheriffs  had  the  selection  of  jurors  in  the 
four  courts  there,  for  the  trial  of  the  most  important  causes, 
civil  and  criminal.  Now,  no  man  was  appointed  sheriff  in 
Dublin,  who  did  not  give  a  pledge  to  the  cause  of  bigotry,  by 
publicly  giving  a  toast  that  was  considered  the  watchword 
and  the  party  pledge  of  the  factious  supporters  of  that  cause. 
He  had  himself  drunk  that  toast,  it  was  true,  and  he  hoped  that 
it  would  be  universally  drunk  throughout  Ireland.  He  had 
drunk  it  for  Repeal,  and  he  was  ready  to  do  so  again  ;  but 
the  members  of  the  Corporation  of  Dublin  drank  it  as  the 
shibboleth  of  a  party.  He  drank  it  as  a  pledge  for  Repeal. 
He  did  not,  in  what  he  had  said,  mean  to  assert  that  the  right 
hon.  gentleman  was  entirely  answerable  for  the  present  state 
of  things  in  Ireland — of  course  he  would  not  make  him  answer- 
able for  the  sins  of  preceding  governments — but  this  he  would 
say,  that  all  the  crimes  which  were  now  being  committed  in 
that  country  must,  in  justice,  be  laid  at  the  door  of  the  Whigs. 
The  Whigs  had  always  proved  the  bitterest  enemies  of  Ireland. 
It  was  the  Whigs  that  violated  the  Treaty  of  Limerick.  The 
Whigs  of  the  present  day  were  only  treading  in  the  steps  of 
the  same  party  which  had  gone  before  them.  To  the  Whigs 
he  would  say,  that,  by  the  course  they  were  now  pursuing, 
they  adopted,  and  rendered  themselves  answerable  for,  all  the 
crimes  which  might  take  place  in  Ireland.  Instead  of  doing 
justice  to  that  unfortunate  country,  they  were  now  calling  for 
increased  powers  to  enable  them  to  still  further  sink  it  down 


O'CONNELL  285 

and  oppress  it.  Let  them  but  do  justice  to  Ireland — let  them 
put  down  the  cry  for  a  Repeal  of  the  Union,  by  showing  that 
it  was  unnecessary — let  them  show  by  deeds,  and  not  by  words, 
that  they  meant  well  to  that  wretched  country.  Why  did 
they  not  do  that  ?  Why  did  they  not  propose  such  measures, 
instead  of  calhng  on  the  first  Reform  Parliament  for  more 
bayonets  and  more  guns,  for  the  cannon  and  the  musket,  in 
order  to  crush  the  people  of  Ireland  to  the  earth  ?  The  next 
thing  he  had  to  complain  of  was  the  armed  police  of  Ireland. 
It  might  be  right  that  the  police  there,  as  in  this  country, 
should,  for  self-defence,  possess  some  species  of  arms,  but  was 
it  right  that  they  should  go  armed  with  deadly  weapons,  even 
to  fairs  and  markets  ?  Were  they  to  go  about  with  arms  in 
their  hands,  with  which,  when  the  least  resistance  was  offered 
to  them,  they  could  spread  deadly  slaughter  around  them  ? 
Such  a  police  force,  so  armed,  would  not  be  endured  in  this 
country.  He  protested  against  the  principle  of  arming  them 
with  deadly  weapons.  The  Government  made  them  do  so  ; 
but  the  result  would  be,  that  the  slightest  resistance — even  an 
accidental  opposition,  would  be  punished  with  death,  for  the 
only  weapons  they  had  were  deadly  ones.  Why  did  they  not 
in  England,  instead  of  a  staff,  put  into  the  constable's  hands 
a  musket  and  a  bayonet  ?  Why  not  arm  him  with  a  loaded 
carbine,  so  that,  in  the  case  of  any  resistance,  or  even  accident, 
which  might  occur  in  a  crowd,  he  might  inflict  death  not  only 
upon  those  who  opposed  him,  but  also  upon  those  who  hap- 
pened to  come  within  his  reach  ?  But  he  was  talking  to  little 
purpose.  He  knew  how  little  the  Government  cared  for  the 
blood  of  the  Irish.  He  knew  with  what  sovereign  contempt 
they  listened  to  those  who  taunted  them  on  the  subject.  But 
he  put  it  to  every  man  of  feeling  and  humanity,  whether  the 
constabulary  ought  to  continue  armed,  so  that  every  offence, 
instead  of  imprisonment  or  capture,  should  be  punished  on 
the  spot  with  death  ?  When  the  Government  put  the  poUce 
thus  armed  in  the  way  of  resistance,  they  promoted  crime. 
Another  thing  was,  arming  the  yeomanry.  He  did  not  believe 
that  anything  had  ever  occurred  more  dangerous  than  arming 
the  yeomanry.  There  had  been  an  increase  of  crime  in  Ireland 
since  that  had  taken  place  ;  but  crime  was  not  yet  at  its  acme. 
The  people  still  had  confidence — they  still  placed  rehance 
upon  those  caluminated  agitators,  who  were  more  anxious  than 


286  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

the  Government  to  put  down  crime.  The  Government  had 
armed  the  yeomanry  in  Ireland,  and  had  increased  them  from 
22,000  to  31,000.  He  knew  what  had  once  happened,  and  he 
cautioned  the  Government  that  the  people  of  the  North  of 
Ireland  were  to  a  man  armed.  The  North  was  the  quietest 
part  of  Ireland,  yet  it  was  but  a  sleeping  volcano.  There  was 
a  tremendous  force  there,  ready  to  enter  into  a  servile  war.  The 
moment  that  the  Government  distributed  arms,  the  Catholic 
population  thought  it  necessary  to  arm  themselves  for  their 
own  protection.  The  slaughter  of  the  CathoHcs  by  the  Orange- 
men had  ceased  two  years  ago  ;  but  he  knew,  and  said,  that  it 
would  increase  on  arming  the  yeomanry.  What  was  the 
consequence  ?  The  people  established  penny  clubs,  and  as 
soon  as  five-and-twenty  shilUngs  were  collected,  a  musket 
was  purchased.  This  process  of  arming  was  going  on  to  a 
frightful  extent,  and  a  magistrate  (he  was  ready  to  give  his 
name,  if  necessary)  had  told  him,  that  he  had,  within  the  last 
six  weeks,  seen  1,000  of  the  CathoHc  peasantry  perfectly 
well  armed.  What  could  all  the  powers  of  the  Government 
do  to  prevent  this  species  of  arming  ?  What  Act  of  Parlia- 
ment could  they  pass  that  would  discover  the  secret  of  an 
Irish  peasant  ?  Nothing  was  so  much  hated  in  Ireland  as  an 
informer,  and  no  money  would  induce  the  people  to  become 
such.  But  the  Government  would  take  more  power.  They 
would  prevent  the  agitators,  who  sincerely  desired  to  put  down 
crime.  He  did  not  ask  them  to  beheve  him  ;  they  might 
believe  him  if  they  pleased,  but  he  scorned  to  ask  them  ;  they 
might  gag  those  agitators  with  Algerine  Acts  ;  they  might 
immure  them  in  prisons  by  a  suspension  of  the  Habeas  Corpus 
Act — they  might  shed  their  blood  upon  the  scaffold,  but,  under 
that  very  scaffold,  they  would  see  the  peasantry  of  Ireland 
display  those  very  arms  which  the  Government  had  been  the 
means  of  putting  into  their  hands.  He  warned  the  Govern- 
ment by  the  instance  which  he  gave  them  of  the  North  of 
Ireland.  They  might  depend  upon  it,  that  the  spirit  which 
prevailed  there  would  pass  elsewhere,  and  the  combination  of 
ignorance  and  crime  would  be  better  organized.  There  would 
be,  not  a  moral  revolution  or  a  political  revolution,  but  a 
revolution  of  the  sword  in  Ireland.  In  the  meantime,  the 
Government  was  suppressing  the  legal  channels  of  discussion. 
The  tithe  meetings  were  suppressed,  and  yet  were  any  of  those 


O'CONNELL  287 

meetings  half  or  one-third  so  numerous  as  the  meetings  of  the 
Birmingham  Political  Union  ?  With  one  exception,  he  had 
never  heard  a  word  which  could  be  construed  as  threatening 
language.  But,  at  all  events,  whatever  interpretation  might 
be  put  upon  words,  he  defied  any  man  to  show  him  an 
example  of  anything  of  the  kind  ;  and  yet  the  Government 
suppressed  all  those  meetings.  He  would  ask  the  hon.  gentle- 
man who  had  seconded  this  Address,  with  a  degree  of  modesty 
which  he  had  always  observed  to  accompany  talent,  what  he 
thought  of  suppressing  meetings  which  assembled,  too  numer- 
ously perhaps,  for  he  was  not  an  advocate  of  too  large  assem- 
blages of  the  people — but  at  which  no  breach  of  the  peace 
occurred,  and  which  separated  quietly,  as  soon  as  they  had 
accompUshed  the  object  for  which  they  had  met  ?  More 
power  the  hon.  gentleman  wanted,  but  if  the  hon.  gentleman 
knew  as  much  of  Ireland  as  he  did,  the  hon.  gentleman  would 
be  a  greater  agitator  than  he  was.  Although  he  knew  it  was 
in  many  cases  absurd  to  say,  post  hoc,  propter  hoc,  yet  it  was 
an  undoubted  fact,  that  whenever  agitation  ceased  in  Ireland, 
crime  had  extended  itself — and  that  whenever  agitation  was 
extended,  crime  had  ceased.  Some  great  and  crying  griev- 
ances in  Ireland  remained  to  be  enumerated.  Was  the  Vestry 
Case  no  grievance  ?  Was  it  no  grievance  that  seventy-five 
Protestants  in  a  parish  should  have  the  power  of  punishing, 
by  taxation,  12,000  Cathohcs  ?  Was  it  no  grievance  that  the 
Catholic  inhabitants  of  a  parish  ten  miles  from  Waterford,  in 
which  Lord  Duncannon  was  the  only  Protestant  resident, 
should  be  thus  treated  ?  Was  it  no  grievance  that  the  vestry 
might  impose  upon  the  Catholic  parishioners  whatever  tax  it 
pleased,  for  the  Communion  wine  and  other  purposes  ?  He 
would  mention  a  flagrant  instance  of  this  imposition.  In  the 
parish  of  St.  Andrew,  in  DubHn,  the  Protestant  inhabitants 
voted  £300  to  the  two  curates  in  addition  to  their  salary. 
This  was  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  law,  and  as  no  person 
could  appeal  against  the  assessment  without  giving  securities 
to  the  amount  of  ;flOO,  two  gentlemen  gave  the  necessary 
securities,  and  brought  forward  an  appeal,  which  was  tried 
in  the  King's  Bench,  and  the  assessment  was  quashed  ;  of 
course  it  would  be  supposed  there  was  an  end  of  the  matter. 
No  such  thing.  The  costs  of  resisting  the  appeal  were  charged 
upon  the  parish,  and  the  £300  were  re- voted  again.     As  the 


288  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

party  who  appealed  was  obliged  to  pay  his  own  costs,  and  as 
the  costs  of  resisting  the  appeal  were  charged  upon  the  parish, 
the  parish  very  wisely  thought  it  best  to  submit  quietly  to  the 
imposition,  and  not  to  contest  the  matter  further.  Was  that 
no  grievance  ?  Was  there  any  other  country  in  the  world  where 
there  would  be  no  redress  for  it  ?  Before  the  Government 
asked  for  more  force  let  them  remedy  that  evil.  Why  should 
the  Catholics  pay  for  the  sacramental  elements  and  other 
articles  for  the  worship  of  the  Protestants  ?  Why  should  they 
pay  for  the  building  and  repair  of  Protestant  churches  ? 
There  was  a  parish  called  Cappado,  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Dublin,  where  there  was  but  one  Protestant ;  and  a  church 
was  forced  upon  him  in  spite  of  himself,  at  the  expense  of  the 
Catholics,  although  the  Protestant  presented  two  petitions 
to  that  House,  stating  that  his  CathoHc  neighbours  and  himself 
were  on  excellent  terms,  and  that  he  had  a  pew  at  Maynooth 
church,  which  was  near  enough,  and  there  was  no  necessity 
for  a  new  church.  Such  were  the  acts  which  his  Majesty's 
Government  required  additional  powers  to  enforce.  Let  them 
first  do  justice.  Why  should  the  CathoHcs  be  compelled  to  pay 
Protestant  clergy  ?  Why  should  the  Cathohcs  be  compelled 
to  build  Protestant  churches  ?  Before  the  ascendency  of 
the  Protestants  in  Ireland,  there  was  a  superabundance  of 
churches  in  that  country,  but  the  Protestants  had  sold  them, 
or  let  them  go  to  ruin  ;  and  now  they  called  upon  the  Cathohcs 
to  repair  the  consequences  of  their  neglect  and  misconduct. 
Was  there  any  agitation  equal  to  this  ?  Look  at  the  temporali- 
ties of  the  Church,  and  say  if  anything  could  be  more  monstrous, 
if  any  effect  of  agitation  could  be  so  pernicious  as  this  system  ? 
The  living  of  the  brother-in-law  of  Earl  Grey  had  been  estimated 
to  bring  in  nearly  £30,000  annually  ;  there  were  96,000  acres 
of  ground  belonging  to  it.  Was  this  paid  by  members  of  the 
Church  of  England  ?  No  ;  the  Presbyterian  and  the  Cathohc 
— worshippers  in  a  different  form — were  compelled,  by  this 
most  monstrous  system,  to  pay  this  divine.  They  were 
8,000,000  CathoHcs,  and  there  were  1,000,000  of  Protestants  ; 
at  least  it  was  said  so.  Well,  there  might  be  1,000,000,  but  he 
did  not  beHeve  it.  Was  it  to  be  borne  that  they  were  thus  to 
be  treated  ?  What  he  wanted  to  know  was  this — was  the 
Church  to  be  cut  down  ?  They  were  agitators,  it  was  said, 
but  their  agitation  was  of  a  clear  character — it  was  of  a  different 


O'CONNELL  289 

sort  from  that  which  was  the  real  source  of  the  distress  and  the 
insubordination,  and  the  what-not.  He  did  not  know  that  it 
was  distinguished  by  two  epaulettes,  or  by  troops  to  cut  down 
the  people.  Force  was  the  cry.  This  had  ever  been  the 
Government  conduct.  For  forty  years,  let  it  be  remembered, 
force  had  been  increasingly  talked  of  to  Scotland  ;  but  Scotch 
broadswords  were  unsheathed — -Scotchmen  knew  their  rights 
— they  rallied — they  united — they  struggled — and  they  suc- 
ceeded. He  did  not  ask  for  supremacy  ;  he  wanted  no  supre- 
macy then,  and  if  talked  of  hereafter,  he  would  resist  it ;  but 
he  did  strongly  contend  against  the  present  unfair  and  haras- 
sing system,  and  insisted  on  its  abolition.  The  Irish  wanted 
that  tithes  should  be  extinguished,  as  the  Government  had 
said  they  should  be.  He  loiew  they  afterwards  added  that 
they  did  not  mean  it,  but  he  wanted  them  to  do  what  they 
said.  He  wished  to  know  whether  tithes  were  to  continue, 
or  whether  any  mitigation  was  to  take  place  ?  Was  it 
to  be  a  '74,  or  a  rase  ?  Were  the  Catholics  to  continue  to 
pay  the  bishops  and  clergy  whom  they  never  saw  ?  There 
was  no  weapon  for  agitation  like  this  grievance.  The  Govern- 
ment treated  the  Catholics  worse  than  the  Turks  treated  the 
Greeks.  The  Turks  even,  cruel  and  harsh  as  they  were, 
despised  such  oppression  towards  the  Greeks  ;  they  never 
insisted  on  their  support  of  the  Mahometan  faith.  The 
ministers,  however,  of  England  were  worse  than  the  Turks. 
He  meant  to  detain  the  House  a  little  longer  on  the  subject 
of  absenteeism.  When  speaking  of  crime,  he  wished  they 
would  look  to  absenteeism- — to  the  rents  that  were  constantly 
going  out  of  the  country.  Would  they  litigate  that  ?  He 
would  tell  them  they  could  not.  Did  ministers  wish  to  push 
them  on  to  a  servile  war ;  would  they  compel  them, 
with  the  devotion  of  a  Falkland,  to  join  criminals  because 
greater  criminals  were  arrayed  against  them  ?  They  called 
out  *'  force."  Why  not  begin  ?  Why  not  postpone  the 
threat,  and  do  justice  to  Ireland ;  and  then,  if  agitation 
continued,  if  insubordination  showed  itself  in  midnight 
plunder  and  outrage,  call  out  for  "  force."  Wait  for  this — 
try  it,  and  then,  if  it  failed,  take  the  excuse,  and  he  would 
support  the  cry.  He  wanted  nothing  but  justice  for  Ireland, 
and  justice  this  country  had  never  rendered  to  her.  The 
Speech  which  had  been  delivered  had  a  prototype  in  one  in  the 
19— (2170) 


290  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

reign  of  Elizabeth,  when  Raleigh  slaughtered  the  garrison  of 
Merbick.  The  cry  for  power  had  ever  been  the  cry  of  the 
Government  of  this  country,  and  under  it  were  committed 
those  EngUsh  crimes  which  were  written  in  the  blood  of  Ireland. 
Strafford,  the  prototype  of  the  right  hon.  gentleman,  acted 
no  otherwise  ;  he  confiscated  the  property  of  two  entire  pro- 
vinces in  Ireland,  and  when  Juries  refused  to  convict,  he  sent 
them  for  two  years  into  Dublin  Castle.  In  the  reign  of  James 
II,  8,000,000  acres  of  land  were  forfeited  in  defending  the 
right  of  his  father.  In  the  present  day  the  same  part  was 
acted — the  scene  was  somewhat  changed — the  actors  were 
different — but  their  conduct  was  substantially  the  same. 
There  was  no  real  amelioration — no  change,  nor  any  intended, 
as  was  proved  in  that  Address  which  he  had  designated  as 
bloody  and  brutal.  What  he  wanted  was,  a  General  Com- 
mittee, that  that  Address  might  be  duly  considered  and  dis- 
cussed line  by  line.  If  that  were  really  a  Reformed  House — 
if  justice  to  Ireland  was  really  their  object,  they  would  not 
refuse  it.  Justice  had  not  been  done  to  Ireland  by  the  Reform 
Bill.  He  strongly  doubted  if  he  had  acted  rightly  in  supporting 
so  strenuously  the  English  Bill.  He  had  received  hints  from 
several  quarters  upon  the  subject.  But  he  had  supported  it, 
and  that  unflinchingly.  Ireland,  in  her  Bill,  was  not  used 
anything  like  so  well  as  England.  The  blunders  were  solely 
attributable  to  Government.  The  Duke  of  WeUington  took 
away  the  franchise  ;  the  ministers  found  that  injustice  when 
they  came  into  office,  and  they  sanctioned  it.  It  was  no 
idle  motive  which  made  him  anxious  to  introduce  so  many 
of  his  family  into  that  House.  He  too  well  knew  the  incurable 
ignorance  which  there  prevailed  on  the  real  state  and  wants 
of  his  country,  and  he  was  determined  to  tell  them  trumpet- 
tongued  to  all.  The  number  of  Repealers  returned  would  at 
least  give  the  Government  some  insight  into  the  sentiments 
of  the  people  on  that  subject.  He  wanted  a  Committee  of 
that  House — he  declared  that  that  declaration  of  war  against 
the  people  of  Ireland  should  be  modified.  Let  the  ministers 
give  them  a  strong  and  emphatic  declaration  of  intended 
justice  to  Ireland — and  if  then  they  applied  for  force,  he  would 
support  them.  But  the  Speech  promised  nothing.  There 
were  still  several  points  untouched,  there  were  the  prosecu- 
tions, to  which  he  would  not  then  advert,  and  twenty  other 


O'CONNELL  291 

topics  on  which  he  could  say  much,  but  he  would  abandon 
the  intention.  He  knew  he  spoke  in  vain — he  felt  he  made 
appeals  which  would  fall  unheeded  on  their  ears.  He  should 
now  know  of  what  that  Reformed  House  was  composed — he 
should  see  the  high  and  independent  members  for  England 
voting  for  "  more  power."  It  was  of  no  use  his  pleading  before 
a  Reformed  Parliament  in  behalf  of  Ireland — it  was  vain  to 
lift  up  his  voice  in  her  cause — for  he  was  sure  his  answer 
would  be  a  laugh  at  himself  and  a  laugh  at  his  country.  Were 
then  the  grievances  of  Ireland  not  real  ?  It  was  well  known 
they  were  real,  heavy,  and  intolerable  ;  and  if  so,  was  it  not 
the  duty  of  the  Government  to  redress  them  ?  He  would 
defy  anyone  who  had  heard  his  words — who  had  taken  notice 
of  his  statements — to  instance  one  case  in  which  he  had  aggra- 
vated a  grievance  ;  and  he  would  defy  anyone  to  find  a  people, 
look  where  he  might,  who  had  agitated,  or  who  had  been 
guilty  of  midnight  outrage,  of  insubordination,  and  reckless 
crime,  without  real  grievances.  He  had  done — he  thanked 
the  House  for  the  patience  with  which  they  had  listened  to 
him — they  were  the  last  hope,  the  last  refuge  of  his  country. 
To  them  he  could  only  look  for  relief  from  the  autocracy  of 
the  right  hon.  gentleman  ;  from  that  **  hoc  volo,  sic  jubeo,  stet 
pro  ratione  voluntas  "  to  which  his  country  was  subjected. 
Whether  Government  was  to  be  administered  by  the  right 
hon.  gentleman  alone — whether  aU  was  to  continue  to  be 
concentrated  in  his  self-sufficiency — they  must  decide.  Seven 
years  of  misrule  had  been  endured  by  Ireland — Government 
had  been  carried  on  on  no  other  plan  than  that  of  Tamerlane ; 
and  the  most  outrageous  cruelties  had  been  inflicted  on  a  pros- 
trate people.  For  himself,  he  laboured  under  one  calamity — that 
of  a  supposed  personal  hostility  to  the  right  hon.  gentleman 
opposite.  Had  he — could  he  have  any  such  feeling  towards 
him  ?  They  had  never  come  together,  and  no  such  feeling 
was  in  existence.  Heaven  knew  that  he  had  no  personal 
motive.  There  was  no  pursuit  of  his  in  which  the  right  hon. 
gentleman  did  or  could,  or,  he  presumed,  would  wish,  to 
impede  him.  He  spoke  of  him  merely  as  the  enemy  of  Ireland. 
He  looked  at  the  accumulation  of  crime — at  the  quantity  of 
blood  increasing  as  it  flowed  in  his  unhappy  country,  and  he 
still  found  that  right  hon.  gentleman,  the  Lord  of  the  Ascendent, 
dictating  to  the  ministry  the  measures  to  be  pursued.     These 


292  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

things  he  wanted  altered.  He  asked  for  the  real  grievances 
of  Ireland  to  be  redressed,  and  then  he  would  go  any  lengths 
the  ministers  might  require. 

Mr.  O'Connell  concluded  by  moving,  as  an  Amendment,  for 
a  Committee  of  the  whole  House  to  consider  His  Majesty's 
Speech. 


SIR   ROBERT   PEEL 

Peel  was,  perhaps,  more  essentially  and  exclusively  a  Parlia- 
mentary speaker  than  any  other  British  statesman.  The  four 
volumes  of  his  published  speeches  contain  no  speech  delivered 
elsewhere  than  in  the  House  of  Commons.  DisraeU  called  him, 
not  altogether  as  a  compliment,  the  greatest  member  of  Parlia- 
ment that  ever  lived.  His  method  may  strike  a  critical 
reader  as  ponderous.  But  his  two  main  objects  were  to 
explain  and  to  persuade.  Of  rhetorical  effect  he  was  quite 
careless.  He  aimed  at  answering  arguments,  at  marshalling 
evidence,  at  clearing  up  obscurities,  and  at  making  his  points 
clear  to  ordinary  minds.  He  differed  from  Cobden  in  addres- 
sing himself  more  particularly  to  the  Parliamentary  situation, 
and  to  the  kind  of  reasoning  which  it  demanded.  He  was  in 
fact  a  versatile  debater,  and  a  singularly  adroit  tactician, 
while  at  the  same  time  his  motives  were  always  sincere,  and 
his  intellectual  honesty  conspicuous.  He  was  a  Conservative 
in  the  sense  that  he  started  with  a  strong  predisposition  against 
change,  and  yet  he  never  closed  his  intelligence  against  the 
admission  of  reasons  or  the  reception  of  knowledge.  It  was 
so  with  the  resumption  of  cash  payments  after  the  war.  It 
was  so  with  the  emancipation  of  the  Catholics.  It  was  so  with 
the  removal  of  the  Com  Laws.  Peel  never  attempted  to  lead 
the  way.  He  was  no  pioneer.  His  view  of  Conservatism  was 
that  it  should  study  to  ascertain  the  precise  moment  at  which 
reforms  might  safely  be  adopted.  He  was  not  for  making 
changes  by  instalments,  but  for  waiting  until  thorough  acquain- 
tance with  them,  and  with  the  safeguards  they  required, 
made  it  safe  to  adopt  them  entirely.  Of  all  public  men  he  was 
the  least  timid.  Even  the  Duke  of  Wellington  gave  up  resist- 
ance to  proposals  he  distrusted  and  disliked  when  he  thought 
that  further  opposition  would  produce  serious  disturbance. 

293 


294  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

The  illustrious  soldier  could  afford  to  say  that  he  shrank  from 
the  alternative  of  anarchy  or  civil  war.  Peel,  though  a  man 
of  acute  sensibility,  braved  any  amount  of  obloquy,  any  risk 
of  misunderstanding  and  detraction,  when  once  he  was  con- 
vinced that  a  case  had  been  made  out  for  a  new  policy.  He 
did  not  seek  to  justify  himself  upon  the  principle  that  the 
King's  Government  must  be  carried  on.  He  knew  very  well 
that  it  always  would  be,  whether  he  remained  in  office  or  not. 
He  seemed  rather  to  ask  himself  the  question  what  could  be 
the  use  of  Parliament  if  debate  was  never  to  produce  convic- 
tion. In  1831  Reform  came  suddenly,  and  he  opposed  it 
stoutly,  though  he  recognised  to  the  full  all  its  consequences 
when  it  had  been  carried.  Catholic  Emancipation  and  Free 
Trade  came  very  gradually.  They  were  argued  for  years  by 
men  of  the  highest  abihty  and  competence  before  they  were 
accepted  by  the  Legislature.  Peel  exhausted  the  objections 
to  them  in  controversy  and  debate  before  he  slowly  and  reluc- 
tantly admitted  that  the  reasons  in  their  favour  were  still 
stronger  than  those  against  them.  If  he  sacrificed  his  party 
to  his  country,  he  sacrificed  also  himself. 

Peel  was  the  creator  of  the  Conservative  party.  His  idea 
may  be  said  to  have  been  that  the  middle  class,  represented 
by  the  House  of  Commons  after  1832,  could  be  used  as  a  barrier 
against  revolution,  quite  independently  of  the  House  of  Lords. 
The  Whigs,  he  thought,  would  be  at  the  mercy  of  British 
Radicals  and  Irish  Repealers.  If  the  old  Tories  were  trans- 
formed by  judicious  management  into  moderate  and  reasonable 
Conservatives,  they  might  establish  a  predominance  in  politics 
which  would  be  stronger  and  less  assailable  than  when  they 
depended  upon  aristocratic  support.  Before  the  catastrophe 
of  1846  much  progress  was  made  towards  the  fulfilment  of 
this  scheme,  though  it  was  interrupted  by  William  the  Fourth's 
dismissal  of  Lord  Melbourne  in  1834.  Peel  showed  on  that 
occasion  as  the  leader  of  a  minority  in  office,  remarkable 
energy,  courage,  and  skill.     Even  after  the  General  Election 


PEEL  295 

he  continued  to  struggle  against  a  majority  which  had  under- 
gone considerable  diminution.  He  had,  however,  been  forced 
into  a  position  which  he  would  not  voluntarily  have  taken 
up,  and  which  was  at  variance  with  his  theory  of  adaptation 
to  a  reformed  House  of  Commons.  Had  Lord  Melbourne's 
Government  been  left  to  fight  their  own  battles  in  Parlia- 
ment, Peel  might  have  anticipated  by  some  years  the  victory 
of  1841.  There  never  was  by  nature  a  more  constitutional 
Minister.  If  he  was  driven  into  courses  which  apparently 
tended  to  exalt  the  prerogative  and  depress  the  representative 
principle,  the  circumstances  in  which  he  found  himself  are 
more  accountable  than  he. 

Resignation  of  Ministers 

House  of  Commons,  June  29th,  1846 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  feel  it  to  be  my  duty  to  avail  myself  of  the 
earliest  opportunity  of  notifying  to  this  House  that  in  conse- 
quence of  the  position  of  her  Majesty's  Government,  and 
especially  in  consequence  of  the  vote  to  which  the  House  came 
on  the  night  of  Thursday  last,  refusing  to  give  to  her  Majesty's 
servants  those  powers  which  they  deem  necessary  for  the 
repression  of  outrage  and  the  protection  of  hfe  in  Ireland, 
they  have  felt  it  to  be  their  duty  to  tender  their  resignation 
to  a  gracious  Sovereign.  The  resolution  to  tender  that  resigna- 
tion was  unanimously  agreed  to  by  her  Majesty's  servants, 
and  adopted  without  hesitation.  If  I  had  any  complaint  to 
prefer  with  respect  to  the  course  pursued  by  the  House,  this 
is  not  the  occasion  on  which  I  should  make  it.  It  is  impossible 
not  to  feel  that  the  occasion  of  a  complete  change  in  the  councils 
of  a  vast  empire,  affecting,  for  weal  or  for  woe,  many  millions 
of  the  Queen's  subjects  in  nearly  aU  parts  of  the  habitable 
globe,  is  an  important,  I  need  almost  say,  a  solemn  occasion. 
It  is  not  upon  such  an  occasion  that  one  word  ought  to  be 
uttered  by  a  minister  of  the  Crown,  acting  in  homage  to  con- 
stitutional principles,  that  can  by  possibility  provoke  party 
controversy.  Such  a  controversy  would  be  whoUy  unsuited 
to  the  magnitude  of  the  occasion  ;  and,  I  must  add,  that  to 
provoke  any  such  controversy  would  be  entirely  at  variance 


296  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

with  the  personal  feeHngs  which  influence  me  in  addressing 
the  House.  Those  feeUngs  would  rather  prompt  me  to  acknow- 
ledge with  gratitude  the  many  occasions  on  which,  speaking 
of  the  great  body  of  the  gentlemen  who  sit  on  this  side  of  the 
House,  they  have  given  to  my  colleagues  and  myself,  at  a 
period  antecedent  to  the  present  session,  their  generous  and 
cordial  support.  They  would  prompt  me  also  to  acknowledge 
with  gratitude  the  disinterested  aid  which  we  have  not  unfre- 
quently  received  from  gentlemen  opposite,  in  oblivion  of  party 
differences.  I  trust,  therefore,  that  nothing  will  escape  from 
me  in  explaining  the  course  her  Majesty's  Government  have 
thought  it  their  duty  to  pursue,  that  can  run  the  risk  of 
provoking  the  controversy  which  I  deprecate. 

Her  Majesty,  Sir,  has  been  graciously  pleased  to  accept  our 
tender  of  resignation  and  her  servants  now  only  hold  their 
offices  until  their  successors  shall  have  been  appointed.  I  said, 
Sir,  that  if  I  had  any  complaints  to  prefer,  this  is  not  the 
occasion  on  which  I  would  prefer  them.  But  I  have  no  com- 
plaints to  make.  I  did  not  propose  the  measures  connected 
with  the  commercial  policy  of  the  empire,  which  have  been  so 
severely  contested,  without  foreseeing  the  great  probability 
that,  whether  those  measures  should  succeed  or  fail,  they  must 
cause  the  dissolution  of  the  Government  which  introduced 
them.  And,  therefore,  I  rather  rejoice  that  her  Majesty's 
ministers  have  been  relieved  from  all  difficulty,  by  an  early 
and  unambiguous  decision  of  the  House  of  Commons  ;  for  I 
do  not  hesitate  to  say,  that  even  if  that  decision  had  been  in 
our  favour  on  the  particular  vote,  I  would  not  have  consented 
to  hold  office  upon  sufferance,  or  through  the  mere  evasion  of 
parliamentary  difficulties.  It  is  not  for  the  public  interest 
that  a  government  should  remain  in  office  when  it  is  unable 
to  give  practical  effect  to  the  measures  it  believes  necessary 
for  the  national  welfare  ;  and  I  certainly  do  not  think  it  pro- 
bable in  the  position  in  which  her  Majesty's  Government  were 
placed  by  the  withdrawal — perhaps  the  natural  withdrawal — 
of  the  confidence  of  many  of  those  who  heretofore  had  given  it 
support,  that  even  if  the  late  vote  had  been  in  our  favour, 
ministers  would  have  been  able,  with  credit  to  themselves, 
and  with  advantage  to  the  interests  of  the  country,  to  conduct 
the  administration  of  public  affairs. 

We  have  advised  her  Majesty  to  accept  our  resignation  at 


PEEL  297 

once,  without  adopting  that  alternative  to  which  we  might 
have  resorted,  namely,  recommending  to  the  Crown  the 
exercise  of  its  prerogative,  and  the  dissolution  of  the  present 
Parhament.  I  do  not  hesitate  to  avow,  speaking  with  a 
frankness  that  I  trust  will  offend  no  one,  that  if  her  Majesty's 
Government  had  failed  in  carrying,  in  all  their  integrity,  the 
main  measures  of  commercial  policy  which  it  was  my  duty 
to  recommend,  there  is  no  exertion  that  I  would  not  have 
made — no  sacrifice  that  I  would  not  have  incurred — in  order 
to  ensure  the  ultimate  success  of  those  measures,  or  at  any 
rate  to  give  the  countr^^  an  opportunity  of  pronouncing  its 
opinion  on  the  subject.  For  such  a  purpose,  I  should  have 
felt  justified  in  advising  dissolution  ;  because  I  think  the  con- 
tinuance of  doubt  and  uncertainty  on  such  important  matters, 
would  have  been  a  greater  evil  than  the  resort  to  a  constitu- 
tional mode  of  ciscertaining  the  opinion  of  the  nation.  But  there 
has  been  fortunately  no  necessity  for  a  dissolution  of  Parliament 
upon  that  ground.  Those  who  dissented  most  strongly  from  our 
commercial  policy  withdrew  all  factious  and  unseemly  oppo- 
sition, and  protesting  against  our  measures,  they  have  finally 
allowed  them  to  pass.  Those  measures  having  thus  become  the 
law,  I  do  not  feel  that  we  should  be  justified,  for  any  subordinate 
consideration,  for  the  mere  interests  of  government  or  party, 
in  advising  the  exercise  of  the  prerogative  to  which  I  have 
referred,  and  the  dissolution  of  Parhament.  I  feel  very 
strongly  that  no  administration  is  justified  in  advising  the 
exercise  of  that  prerogative,  unless  there  be  a  reasonable 
presumption,  a  strong  moral  conviction,  indeed,  that  after 
dissolution  they  would  be  enabled  to  administer  the  affairs 
of  the  country  through  the  support  of  a  party  sufficiently 
powerful  to  carry  their  measures.  I  do  not  think  a  dissolution! 
justifiable  for  the  purpose  merely  of  strengthening  a  party.! 
The  power  of  dissolution  is  a  great  instrument  in  the  hands  of 
the  Crown  ;  and  it  would  have  a  tendency  to  blunt  the  instru- 
ment if  it  were  employed  without  grave  necessity.  If  the 
purpose  were  to  enable  the  country  to  decide  whether  ministers 
had  been  justified  in  proposing  the  measures  of  commercial 
pohcy  brought  forward  at  the  beginning  of  the  session,  those 
measures  having  passed  into  law,  I  do  not  think  such  a  purpose 
alone  would  be  a  sufficient  ground  for  a  dissolution.  There 
ought  also  to  be  a  strong  presumption  that,  after  a  new  election 


298  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

there  would  be  returned  to  this  House  a  party  with  strength 
sufficient  to  enable  the  Government,  by  their  support,  to  carry 
on  that  system  of  public  policy  of  which  it  approved.     I  do 
not  mean  a  support  founded  upon  mere  temporary  sympathy, 
or  a  support  founded  upon  concurrence  in  one  great  question 
of  domestic  policy,  however  important.      We  ought  not,  in  my  I 
opinion,  to  dissolve  without  a  full  assurance  that  we  should  \ 
have  the  support  of  a  powerful  party  united  with  us  by  accord- 
ance in  general  views  and  principles  of  government.     In  the 
present  state  and  division  of  party,  and  after  all  that  has  j 
occurred,  I  do  not  entertain  a  confident  hope  that  a  dissolution 
would  give  us  that  support.     I  think,  too,  that  after  the  excite- 
ment that  has  taken  place — after  the  stagnation  of  trade  that 
has  necessarily  followed  our  protracted  discussions  on  the 
Corn-laws  and  the  tariff,  it  is  not  an  advantageous  period  for 
dissolution,  but  that  the  country  should  be  allowed  an  interval 
of  tranquillity  and  repose.    We  have,  therefore,  on  these  several  \ 
grounds,  preferred  instant  resignation  to  the  alternative  of 
dissolution. 

The  question  on  which  we  were  defeated,  was  one  connected 
with  Ireland.  I  should,  indeed,  deeply  lament  that  defeat, 
if  it  could  be  thought  that  the  measure  we  proposed  for  the 
repression  of  outrage  in  Ireland  was  an  indication  that  her 
Majesty's  servants  held  any  opinion  in  regard  to  the  policy 
to  be  pursued  towards  that  country  different  from  that  which 
I  declared  towards  the  close  of  last  session.  To  the  opinions 
I  then  avowed — opinions  which  had  practical  effect  gi^^n  to 
them  by  the  measures  we  proposed — by  such  measures,  for 
example,  as  the  charitable  bequests  acts,  and  for  the  vote  for 
the  enlarged  endowment  of  the  College  of  Maynooth — I  now 
profess  my  entire  and  unqualified  adherence.  We  brought 
forward  the  measure  against  which  the  House  has  recently 
decided,  not  under  the  behef  that  resistance  to  the  contagious 
spread  of  crime,  and  a  vigorous  repression  by  law  of  offences 
disgracing  some  parts  of  the  country,  were  in  themselves 
calculated  permanently  to  improve  the  social  condition  of 
Ireland  ;  but  we  thought  that  the  restoration  and  mainten- 
ance of  order  were  necessary  preliminaries  to  the  success  of 
ulterior  legislation  for  the  improvement  of  the  condition  of  the 
people.  The  House,  however,  has  decided  otherwise,  and  I 
am  not  bound  to  arraign  that  decision.     I  only  deprecate  the 


PEEL  299 

inference  that,  because  we  proposed  that  bill,  which  some 
called  a  measure  of  coercion,  but  which  we  considered  a  measure 
necessary  for  the  protection  of  life,  our  views  in  regard  to  the 
poUcy  to  be  pursued  towards  Ireland  have  undergone  a  change. 
Speaking  for  myself,  I  do  not  hesitate  to  avow  the  opinion,  that 
there  ought  to  be  established  a  complete  equality  of  municipal, 
civil,  and  political  rights,  as  between  Ireland  and  Great  Britain. 
By  complete  equality  I  do  not  mean — because  I  know  that  is 
impossible — a  technical  and  literal  equality  in  every  particular 
respect.  In  these  matters,  as  in  matters  of  more  sacred 
import,  it  may  be  that  "  the  letter  killeth,  but  the  spirit  giveth 
hfe,"  and  I  speak  of  the  spirit  and  not  of  the  letter  in  which  our 
legislation,  in  regard  to  franchise  and  privilege,  ought  to  be 
conducted.  My  meaning  is,  that  there  should  be  real  and 
substantial  equahty  of  political  and  civil  rights,  so  that  no 
person,  vie\ving  Ireland  with  an  unbiassed  eye,  and  comparing 
the  civil  franchise  of  Ireland  with  those  of  England  or  of 
Scotland,  shall  be  able  to  say  with  truth,  that  a  different  rule 
has  been  adopted  towards  Ireland,  and  that  on  account  of 
hostility,  or  suspicion,  or  distrust,  civil  freedom  is  there  cur- 
tailed and  mutilated.  That  is  what  I  mean  by  equality  in 
legislating  for  Ireland  in  respect  to  civil  franchise  and  political 
rights. 

With  regard  to  the  executive  administration  in  Ireland,  I 
think  the  favour  of  the  Crown  ought  to  be  bestowed,  and  the 
confidence  of  the  Crown  reposed,  without  reference  to  religious 
distinctions.  It  may  appear  that  we  have  not  practically 
acted  on  that  principle,  but  it  is  not  because  we  repudiate  it 
or  deny  its  justice.  When  we  have  taken  the  opportunity  of 
manifesting  confidence  in  any  member  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
body,  I  cannot  say  that  justice  has  been  done  to  our  motives, 
nor  has  the  position  of  the  individual  accepting  a  mark  of 
favour  from  us  been  such  as  to  encourage  other  Roman  Catholics 
to  receive  similar  proofs  of  confidence.  Those  who  succeed 
us  in  the  Government  of  Ireland  may  have  better  means  of 
carrying  that  principle  into  execution  ;  and  if  they  act  upon  it 
and  bestow  the  favour  and  confidence  of  the  Crown  without 
rehgious  differences,  they  shall  hear  no  complaint  from  me  on 
that  ground. 

Then,  Sir,  with  respect  to  the  general  spirit  in  which  our 
legislation  for  Ireland  should  be  conducted.     Adhering  to  all 


300  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

the  opinions  which  I  have  heretofore  expressed  on  the  greater 
and  more  important  points  of  Irish  pohcy,  I  am  at  the  same 
time  prepared  to  co-operate  with  those  who  feel  the  present 
social  conditions  of  the  people  in  respect  to  the  tenure  of  land, 
and  to  the  relation  between  landlord  and  tenant,  to  be  one  that 
deserves  our  immediate  though  most  cautious  consideration. 
It  may  be  impossible,  by  legislation,  to  apply  any  instant 
remedy  to  the  state  of  affairs  which  unfortunately  exists  in 
that  country  ;  but  even  if  the  benefit  be  necessarily  remote, 
that  very  circumstance  ought  to  operate  as  an  additional 
stimulus  to  us  to  apply  our  minds  without  delay  to  the  con- 
sideration of  a  subject  of  equal  difficulty  and  importance. 
On  all  those  matters  connected  with  the  tenure  of  land  and  the 
relation  of  landlord  and  tenant — I  would  uphold  the  rights 
of  property.  There  may  be  occasionally  a  seeming  temporary 
advantage  in  disregarding  these  rights — but  the  ultimate  and 
permanent  benefit  of  strictly  maintaining  them  greatly  pre- 
ponderates. The  course  we  have  taken  during  this  session 
of  extreme  pressure  of  public  business  is  a  sufficient  proof  that 
there  has  been  no  disinclination  on  our  part  to  consider  the 
amendment  of  the  law  in  respect  to  the  tenure  and  improve- 
ment of  landed  property  in  Ireland,  nor  will  there  be  any  dis- 
inclination to  co-operate  in  our  private  capacities  with  those 
on  whom  the  public  trust  committed  to  us  is  about  to  be 
devolved. 

Sir,  I  have  reason  to  believe  that  the  noble  lord,  the  member 
for  the  City  of  London,  has  been  commanded  by  the  Queen  to 
repair  to  her  Majesty  for  the  purpose  of  rendering  his  assistance 
to  the  formation  of  a  government.  I  presume  the  general  prin- 
ciple on  which  the  government  to  be  formed  by  the  noble  Lord 
will  act,  so  far  as  its  commercial  policy  is  concerned,  will  be 
the  continual  application  of  those  principles  which  tend  to 
produce  a  freer  intercourse  with  other  countries.  If  that| 
poHcy  be  pursued,  as  I  confidently  expect  it  will,  I  shall  feel  it! 
to  be  my  duty  to  give  to  the  Government,  in  the  furtherance* 
of  it,  my  cordial  support.  If  other  countries  choose  to  buy  in 
the  dearest  market,  such  an  option  on  their  part  constitutes  no 
reason  why  we  should  not  be  permitted  to  buy  in  the  cheapest. 
I  trust  the  Government  of  the  noble  Lord  will  not  resume 
the  poHcy  which  they  and  we  have  felt  most  inconvenient, 
namely  the  hagghng  with  foreign  countries  about  reciprocal 


PEEL  301 

concessions,  instead  of  taking  that  independent  course  which 
we  believe  to  be  conducive  to  our  own  interests.  Let  us  trust 
to  the  influence  of  pubhc  opinion  in  other  countries — let  us 
trust  that  our  example,  with  the  proof  of  practical  benefit  we 
derive  from  it,  will  at  no  remote  period  insure  their  adoption 
of  the  principles  on  which  we  have  acted,  rather  than  defer 
indefinitely  that  which  per  se  is  advantageous  to  ourselves,  in 
the  hope  of  obtaining  by  delay  equivalent  concessions  from 
other  countries.  Sir,  when  I  express  the  confident  hope  that 
these  general  principles  will  influence  the  commercial  policy 
of  the  new  Government,  I  do  not  advise  that  the  adoption  of 
them  should  overrule  every  moral  consideration  or  should  at 
once  subject  every  species  of  production  in  this  country  to 
competition  with  other  nations.  I  speak  generally  as  to  the 
tendency  of  our  commercial  policy.  I  trust  that  every  step 
that  is  taken  will  be  towards  the  relaxation  of  restriction  upon 
trade.  I,  for  one,  shall  not  urge  upon  the  Government  a  hasty 
and  precipitate  adoption  of  principles  sound  in  themselves, 
if  through  the  abrupt  and  sudden  application  of  them,  we  incur 
the  risk  of  a  great  derangement  of  the  social  system,  I  shall 
bear  in  mind  that  vast  experiments  have  been  recently  made 
under  the  present  administration — I  shall  bear  in  mind,  also, 
that  the  surplus  amount  of  pubhc  revenue  is  smaller  than  it 
ought  to  be,  consistently  with  the  permanent  interests  of  the 
country.  While,  therefore,  I  offer  a  cordial  support  in  enforcing 
those  general  principles  of  commercial  policy  which  have 
received  the  sanction  of  Parliament  in  the  present  session,  I 
shall  not  urge  the  Government  to  any  such  simultaneous  and 
precipitate  extension  of  them  as  may  be  either  injurious  to 
interests  entitled  from  special  circumstances  to  some  degree 
of  continued  protection,  or  may  incur  the  risk  of  deranging 
the  financial  system  of  the  country.  In  delivering  these  opin- 
ions I  am  bound  to  say  that  I  am  rather  indicating  my  own 
intentions  and  the  course  I  shall  individually  pursue,  than 
that  I  have  had  opportunity  of  conferring  with  others,  and  am 
authorized  to  speak  their  sentiments.  I  cannot  doubt,  however, 
that  those  who  gave  their  cordial  concurrence  to  the  commercial 
measures  which  I  have  proposed,  will  be  ready  to  give  their 
general  acquiescence  and  support  to  measures  of  a  similar 
character  when  proposed  by  others. 

Sir,  I  do  not  know  that  it  is  necessary  that  I  should  make 


302  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

any  other  declarations  as  to  the  future  than  those  I  have  already 
made.  I  wish  to  draw  no  invidious  contrasts  with  preceding 
administrations  :  I  wish  to  make  no  allusions  in  a  hostile 
spirit ;  but  I  cannot  surrender  power  without  expressing  the 
confident  belief  that,  during  the  five  years  for  which  power  has 
been  committed  to  our  hands  neither  the  interests  nor  the 
honour  of  this  country  have  been  compromised.  I  can  say  with 
truth  that,  during  that  period  the  burden  of  taxation  has  been 
rendered  more  equal,  and  that  the  pressure  which  was  unjust 
and  severe  on  many  classes  of  her  Majesty's  subjects  has  been 
greatly  mitigated.  I  can  say  with  truth,  that  many  restric- 
tions upon  commerce  injuriously  affecting  the  trade  of  this 
country,  have  been  removed.  Without  interfering  with 
legitimate  speculation,  without  paralysing,  or  at  all  deranging 
the  credit  of  the  State,  stability  has  been  given  to  the  monetary 
systems  of  this  country  ;  and  let  me  here  acknowledge  with 
gratitude  the  cordial  support  which  (without  reference  to  party 
distinctions)  the  measures  I  proposed  with  regard  to  the  Bank 
of  England,  the  joint-stock  banks,  and  the  private  banks  of 
this  country,  received  in  the  year  1843.  Sir,  I  trust  also  that 
the  stability  of  our  Indian  Empire  has  not  been  weakened  by 
the  policy  we  have  pursued  ;  and  that  the  glory  and  honour 
of  the  British  arms  both  by  sea  and  land  in  every  part  of  the 
world  have  been  maintained,  not  through  our  exertions  but 
through  the  devoted  gallantry  of  the  soldiers  and  sailors  of 
this  country.  Although  there  have  been  considerable  reduc- 
tions in  the  public  burdens,  yet  I  have  the  satisfaction  of  stating 
to  the  House,  that  the  national  defences  both  by  sea  and  land 
have  been  greatly  improved,  and  that  the  army  and  navy  are 
in  a  most  efficient  state.  I  trust,  likewise,  that  I  may  con- 
gratulate the  House,  that,  notwithstanding  a  great  diminution 
of  the  fiscal  burdens  of  the  empire,  our  finances  are  in  a  pros- 
perous and  a  buoyant  state,  and  that  on  the  5th  of  July  next 
the  return  to  be  laid  upon  the  table  will  prove  that  there  has 
been  an  increased  consumption  of  almost  every  article  subject 
to  custom  and  excise  duties,  and  that  general  prosperity  and 
the  demand  which  it  occasions  have  supplied  the  void  to  our 
finances  that  would  otherwise  have  been  created.  Lastly, 
I  can  say  with  truth,  that  without  any  harsh  enforcement  of 
the  law,  without  any  curtailment  of  the  liberty  of  the  subject, 
or  the  freedom  of  the  press,  there  has  been,  speaking  at  least  of 


PEEL  303 

Great  Britain,  as  much  of  submission  and  obedience  to  the  law, 
as  at  any  period  of  our  history.  Nay,  I  will  say  more — that 
in  consequence  of  greater  command  over  the  necessaries  and 
minor  luxuries  of  life — in  consequence,  too,  of  confidence  in  the 
just  administration  of  the  law,  and  in  the  benevolent  intentions 
of  Parliament,  there  has  been  more  content,  less  sedition  and 
public  crime,  less  necessity  for  the  exercise  of  power  for  the 
repression  of  political  disaffection  or  outrage,  than  was  ever 
known  at  any  antecedent  period.  I  said  **  lastly,"  but  I  have 
reserved  one  topic,  for  which  I  think,  without  any  unseemly 
boast,  or  invidious  comparison,  I  may  claim  credit  for  her 
Majesty's  councils — at  least  for  that  distinguished  man,  less 
conspicuous,  perhaps,  in  debate,  than  some  others,  but  fully  as 
deserving  of  public  honour  and  respect — on  account  of  the 
exertions  he  has  made  for  the  maintenance  of  peace — I  mean 
my  noble  friend  the  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs.  My 
noble  friend  has  dared  to  avow  that  there  is  a  moral  obligation 
upon  the  Christian  minister  of  a  Christian  country  to  exhaust 
every  effort  in  the  maintenance  of  peace,  before  incurring  the 
risk,  not  to  say  the  guilt,  of  war.  But  while  he  has  not  shrunk 
from  the  manly  avowal  of  that  opinion,  I  will,  in  justice  to  him, 
add  this — and  it  is  perfectly  consistent  with  that  opinion, 
as  to  the  moral  obligation  of  maintaining  peace  while  peace 
can  be  maintained  with  honour — that  there  never  was  a 
minister  less  inclined  to  sacrifice  any  essential  interest,  or  to 
abate  anything  from  the  dignity  and  honour  of  this  country, 
even  for  the  purpose  of  securing  that  inestimable  blessing. 
Sir,  I  do  confidently  trust  that  we  leave  the  foreign  relations 
of  this  country  in  a  satisfactory  state — that,  speaking  not  only 
of  France,  but  of  the  other  great  powers  of  Europe,  there  is 
entire  confidence  in  the  honourable  intentions  of  this  country, 
and  a  real  desire  on  the  part  of  the  governments  of  other 
powers  to  co-operate  with  us  in  the  maintenance  of  peace. 
Sir,  it  is  the  spirit  of  mutual  confidence  on  the  part  of  pubhc 
men,  the  ministers  of  great  countries,  which  most  facilitates 
the  maintenance  of  general  peace.  Let  it  be  remembered  that 
we  necessarily  and  frequently  come  in  contact  with  France  in 
various,  and  sometimes  very  distant,  quarters  of  the  world — 
that  there  are  on  both  sides  employed  in  the  public  service 
warm  partisans,  naturally,  perhaps  justly,  jealous  of  the  honour 
of  their  respective  countries — that  grounds  of  quarrel,  small 


304  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

in  themselves,  inflamed  by  the  spirit  of  rivalry  and  keen  sense 
of  national  honour  might  easily  be  fomented  into  the  causes  of 
war,  desolating  nations,  unless  the  counsels  of  the  great  powers 
were  presided  over  by  ministers  of  comprehensive  views,  who, 
feeling  peace  to  be  the  true  interest  of  the  civilized  world,  are 
determined  that  trifling  disputes,  and  the  excited  passions  of 
angry  partisans,  shall  not  involve  their  respective  countries 
in  the  calamities  of  war. 

Sir,  if  anything  could  have  induced  me  to  regret  that  decision 
on  the  part  of  the  House,  which  terminates  the  existence  of  the 
Government,  it  would  have  been  the  wish  that  we  could  survive 
the  day  when  intelligence  might  be  received  from  the  United 
States  as  to  the  result  of  our  last  attempt  to  adjust  the  differ- 
ences with  that  country — differences  which,  unless  speedily 
terminated,  must  probably  involve  both  countries  in  the 
necessity  of  an  appeal  to  arms.  The  House  will  probably 
recollect  that,  after  we  had  offered  to  leave  the  dispute 
respecting  the  territory  of  the  Oregon  to  arbitration,  and  that 
offer  had  been  rejected,  the  President  of  the  United  States 
sent  a  message  to  the  Congress,  which  led  to  discussions  with 
regard  to  the  termination  of  the  convention  entered  into  several 
years  since,  which  provided  for  a  temporary  adjustment  of 
our  differences — at  least  for  a  temporary  avoidance  of  quarrel 
— and  enabled  the  two  countries  jointly  to  occupy  the  territory 
of  the  Oregon.  The  two  Houses  of  the  American  Congress, 
advised  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  exercise  his 
unquestionable  power,  and  to  signify  to  this  country  the  desire 
of  the  United  States  to  terminate  after  the  lapse  of  a  year  the 
existing  convention.  They,  however,  added  to  that  advice, 
which  might,  perhaps,  otherwise  have  been  considered  of  an 
unsatisfactory  or  hostile  character,  the  declaration  that  they 
desired  the  notice  for  the  termination  of  the  convention  to  be 
given,  in  order  that  an  amicable  adjustment  of  the  dispute 
between  the  two  countries  might  therefore  be  facilitated.  It 
appeared  to  us,  that  the  addition  of  that  conciliatory  declara- 
tion— the  expression  of  a  hope  that  the  termination  of  the 
convention  might  the  more  strongly  impress  upon  the  two 
countries  the  necessity  of  amicable  adjustment — removed  any 
barrier  which  diplomatic  punctilios  might  have  raised  to  a 
renewal  by  this  country  of  the  attempt  to  settle  our  difficulties 
with   the    United   States.     We   did   not   hesitate,    therefore, 


PEEL  305 

within  two  days  after  receipt  of  that  intelligence — we  did  not 
hesitate,  although  the  offer  of  arbitration  made  by  us  had 
been  rejected,  to  do  that  which,  in  the  present  state  of  the 
protracted  dispute,  it  became  essential  to  do — namely,  not  to 
propose  renewed  and  lengthened  negotiations,  but  to  specify 
frankly  and  without  reserve  what  were  the  terms  on  which 
we  could  consent  to  a  partition  of  the  country  of  the  Oregon. 
Sir,  the  President  of  the  United  States  met  us  in  a  corresponding 
spirit.  Whatever  might  have  been  the  expressions  heretofore 
used  by  him,  however  strongly  he  might  have  been  personally 
committed  to  the  adoption  of  a  different  course,  he  most  wisely 
and  patriotically  determined  at  once  to  refer  our  proposals 
to  the  Senate — that  authority  of  the  United  States,  whose 
consent  is  requisite  for  the  conclusion  of  any  negotiation  of 
this  kind,  and  the  Senate,  acting  also  in  the  same  pacific 
spirit,  has,  I  have  the  heartfelt  satisfaction  to  state,  at  once 
advised  acquiescence  in  the  terms  we  offered.  From  the 
importance  of  the  subject,  and  considering  that  this  is  the  last 
day  I  shall  have  to  address  the  House  as  a  minister  of  the 
Crown,  I  may,  perhaps,  be  allowed  to  state  what  are  the 
proposals  we  made  to  the  United  States  for  the  final  settle- 
ment of  the  Oregon  question.  In  order  to  prevent  the  necessity 
for  renewed  diplomatic  negotiations,  we  prepared  and  sent  out 
a  form  of  convention,  which  we  trusted  the  United  States 
would  accept.  The  first  article  of  that  convention  was  to  this 
effect,  that — "  From  the  point  on  the  49th  parallel  of  north 
latitude,  where  the  boundary  laid  down  in  existing  treaties 
and  conventions  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States 
terminates,  the  line  of  boundary  between  the  territories  of 
her  Britannic  Majesty  and  those  of  the  United  States  shall  be 
continued  westward  along  the  said  49th  parallel  of  north 
latitude,  to  the  middle  of  the  channel  which  separates  the 
continent  from  Vancouver's  Island,  and  thence  southerly 
through  the  middle  of  the  said  channel,  and  of  Fuca's 
Straits  to  the  Pacific  Ocean  ;  provided,  however,  that  the 
navigation  of  the  said  channel  and  straits,  south  of  the  49th 
parallel  of  north  latitude,  remain  free  and  open  to  both 
parties." 

Those  who  remember  the  local  conformation  of  that  country 
wiU  understand  that  that  which  we  proposed  is  in  continuation 
of  the  49th  parallel  of  latitude,  till  it  strikes  the  straits  of  Fuca  ; 

20 (2170) 


306  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

that  that  parallel  should  not  be  continued  as  a  boundary  across 
Vancouver's  Island,  thus  depriving  us  of  a  part  of  Vancouver's 
Island,  but  that  the  middle  of  the  channel  shall  be  the  future 
boundary,  thus  leaving  us  in  possession  of  the  whole  of  Van- 
couver's Island  with  equal  right  to  the  navigation  of  the  Straits. 
Sir,  the  second  article  of  the  convention  we  sent  for  the  accept- 
ance of  the  United  States  was  to  this  effect,  that  "  From  the 
point  at  which  the  49th  parallel  of  north  latitude  shall  be  found 
to  intersect  the  great  northern  branch  of  the  Columbia  river,  the 
navigation  of  the  said  branch  shall  be  free  and  open  to  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company,  and  to  all  British  subjects  trading 
with  the  same,  to  the  point  where  the  said  branch  meets  the 
main  stream  of  the  Columbia,  and  thence  down  the  said  main 
stream  to  the  ocean,  with  free  access  into  and  through  the 
said  river  or  rivers,  it  being  understood  that  all  the  usual 
postages  along  the  line  thus  described,  shall  in  like  manner 
be  free  and  open.  In  navigating  the  said  river  or  rivers — 
British  subjects,  with  their  goods  and  produce,  shall  be  treated 
on  the  same  footing  as  citizens  of  the  United  States  ;  it  being, 
however,  always  understood,  that  nothing  in  this  article  shall 
be  construed  as  preventing,  or  intended  to  prevent  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  from  making  any  regulations 
respecting  the  navigation  of  the  ^  said  river  or  rivers  not 
inconsistent  with  the  present  treaty." 

Sir,  I  will  not  occupy  the  attention  of  the  House  with  the 
mere  details  of  this  convention.  I  have  read  the  important 
articles.  On  this  very  day,  on  my  return  from  my  mission 
to  her  Majesty,  to  offer  the  resignation  of  her  Majesty's  servants, 
I  had  the  satisfaction  of  finding  an  official  letter  from  Mr. 
Pakenham,  intimating  in  the  following  terms  the  acceptance 
of  our  proposals,  and  giving  an  assurance  of  the  immediate 
termination  of  our  differences  with  the  United  States  : 

"Washington,  June  I3th,   1846. 

"  My  Lord, — In  conformity  with  what  I  had  the  honour  to  state 
in  my  despatch,  No.  68,  of  the  7th  instant,  the  President  sent  a  message 
on  Wednesday  last  to  the  Senate,  submitting  for  the  opinion  of  that 
body  the  draught  of  a  convention  for  the  settlement  of  the  Oregon 
question,  which  I  was  instructed  by  your  lordship's  despatch,  No.  19, 
of  the  18th  of  Ma}^  to  propose  for  the  acceptance  of  the  United 
States. 

"  After  a  few  hours'  deliberation  on  each  of  the  three  days,  Wednes- 
day, Thursday,  and  Friday,  the  Senate,  by  a  majority  of  38  votes  to 


PEEL  307 

12,  adopted  yesterday  evening  a  resolution  advising  the  President 
to  accept  the  terms  proposed  by  her  Majesty's  Government.  The 
President  did  not  hesitate  to  act  on  this  advice,  and  Mr.  Buchanan 
accordingly  sent  for  me  this  morning,  and  informed  me  that  the 
conditions  offered  by  her  Majesty's  Government  were  accepted  by 
the  Government  of  the  United  States,  without  the  addition  or  alteration 
of  a  single  word. — I  have  the  honour  to  be,  etc. 

"  R.  Pakenham. 

"  The  Right  Hon.  the  Earl  of  Aberdeen,  K.T.,  etc." 

Thus,  Sir,  the  governments  of  the  two  great  nations,  impelled, 
I  believe,  by  the  public  opinion  of  each  country  in  favour  of 
peace — by  that  opinion  which  ought  to  guide  and  influence 
statesmen — have,  by  moderation,  by  mutual  compromise, 
averted  the  dreadful  calamity  of  a  war  between  two  nations 
of  kindred  origin  and  common  language,  the  breaking  out  of 
which  might  have  involved  the  civilized  world  in  general 
conflict.  A  single  year,  perhaps  a  single  month  of  such  a  war, 
would  have  been  more  costly  than  the  value  of  the  whole 
territory  that  was  the  object  of  dispute.  But  this  evil  has  been 
averted  consistently  with  perfect  honour  on  the  part  of  the 
American  Government,  and  on  the  part  of  those  who  have  at 
length  closed,  I  trust,  every  cause  of  dissension  between  the 
two  countries.  Sir,  I  may  add,  to  the  credit  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  this  country,  that,  so  far  from  being  influenced  in  our 
views  in  regard  to  the  policy  of  termination  of  these  disputes  of 
the  Oregon  by  the  breaking  out  of  the  war  between  the  United 
States  and  with  Mexico,  we  distinctly  intimated  to  Mr. 
Pakenham,  that  although  that  event  had  occurred,  it  did  not 
effect,  in  the  shghtest  degree,  our  desire  for  peace.  Mr. 
Pakenham,  knowing  the  real  wishes  and  views  of  his  govern- 
ment, having  a  discretionary  power  in  certain  cases  to  with- 
hold the  proposals  we  had  instructed  him  to  make,  wisely 
thought  the  occurrence  of  Mexican  hostilities  with  the  United 
States,  was  not  one  of  the  cases  which  would  justify  the  exercise 
of  that  discretionary  power,  and  therefore  most  wisely  did  he 
tender  the  offer  of  peace  to  the  United  States  on  the  impulse 
of  his  own  conviction  and  in  the  full  confidence  in  the  pacific 
policy  of  his  own  Government.  Let  me  add,  also,  and  I  am 
sure  this  House  will  think  it  to  the  credit  of  my  noble  friend, 
that  on  the  occurrence  of  these  hostilities  between  Mexico  and 
the  United  States,  before  we  were  aware  of  the  reception 


308  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

which  the  offer  on  our  part  in  respect  to  the  Oregon  would 
meet  with,  the  first  packet  that  sailed  tendered  to  the  United 
States  the  offer  of  our  good  offices,  for  the  purpose  of  mediation 
between  them  and  the  Mexican  Government.  Sir,  I  do  cordially 
rejoice,  that  in  surrendering  power  at  the  feet  of  a  majority 
of  this  House,  I  have  the  opportunity  of  giving  them  the 
official  assurance  that  every  cause  of  quarrel  with  that  great 
country  on  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic  is  amicably 
terminated. 

Sir,  I  have  now  executed  the  task  which  my  public  duty 
imposed  upon  me.  I  trust  I  have  said  nothing  which  can  lead 
to  the  revival  on  the  present  occasion  of  those  controversies 
which  I  have  deprecated.  Whatever  opinions  may  be  held 
with  regard  to  the  extent  of  the  danger  with  which  we  were 
threatened  from  the  failure  in  one  great  article  of  subsistence, 
I  can  say  with  truth  that  her  Majesty's  Government,  in  pro- 
posing those  measures  of  commercial  policy  which  have  dis- 
entitled them  to  the  confidence  of  many  who  heretofore  gave 
them  their  support,  were  influenced  by  no  other  motive  than 
the  desire  to  consult  the  interests  of  this  country.  Our  object 
was  to  avert  dangers  which  we  thought  were  imminent,  and  to 
terminate  a  conflict  which,  according  to  our  belief,  would  soon 
place  in  hostile  collision  great  and  powerful  classes  in  this 
country.  The  maintenance  of  power  was  not  a  motive  for 
the  proposal  of  these  measures  ;  for,  as  I  said  before,  I  had  not 
a  doubt,  that  whether  these  measures  were  accompanied  by 
failure  or  success,  the  certain  issue  must  be  the  termination 
of  the  existence  of  this  Government.  It  is,  perhaps,  advan- 
tageous for  the  public  interests  that  such  should  be  the  issue. 
I  admit  that  the  withdrawal  of  confidence  from  us  by  many 
of  our  friends  was  the  natural  result.  When  proposals  are 
made,  apparently  at  variance  with  the  course  which  ministers 
heretofore  pursued,  and  subjecting  them  to  the  charge  of 
inconsistency — it  is  perhaps  advantageous  for  this  country, 
and  for  the  general  character  of  public  men,  that  the  proposal 
of  measures  of  that  kind,  under  such  circumstances  should 
entail  that  which  is  supposed  to  be  the  fitting  punishment, 
namely,  expulsion  from  office.  I,  therefore,  do  not  complain 
of  that  expulsion.  I  am  sure  that  it  is  far  preferable  to  the 
continuance  in  office  without  the  full  assurance  of  the  confi- 
dence of  this  House.     I  said  before,  and  I  said  truly,  that  in 


PEEL  S09 

proposing  our  measures  of  commercial  policy,  I  had  no  wish 
to  rob  others  of  the  credit  justly  due  to  them.  I  must  say, 
with  reference  to  hon.  gentlemen  opposite,  as  I  say  with 
reference  to  ourselves,  that  neither  of  us  is  the  party  which 
is  justly  entitled  to  the  credit  of  them.  There  has  been  a 
combination  of  parties,  generally  opposed  to  each  other,  and 
that  combination,  and  the  influence  of  Government,  have  led 
to  their  ultimate  success  ;  but  the  name  which  ought  to  be 
associated  \nth  the  success  of  those  measures  is  not  the 
name  of  the  noble  Lord,  the  organ  of  the  party  of  which  he  is 
the  leader,  nor  is  it  mine.  The  name  which  ought  to  be,  and 
will  be,  associated  with  the  success  of  these  measures,  is  the 
name  of  one  who,  acting,  I  believe,  from  pure  and  disinterested 
motives,  has,  with  untiring  energy,  made  appeals  to  our 
reason,  and  has  enforced  those  appeals  with  an  eloquence  the 
more  to  be  admired  because  it  was  unaffected  and  unadorned  : 
the  name  which  ought  to  be  chiefly  associated  with  the  success 
of  those  measures,  is  the  name  of  Richard  Cobden. 

Sir,  I  now  close  the  observations  which  it  has  been  my  duty 
to  address  to  the  House,  thanking  them  sincerely  for  the  favour 
with  which  they  have  listened  to  me  in  performing  this  last 
act  of  my  official  career.  Within  a  few  hours,  probably,  that 
power  that  I  have  held  for  a  period  of  five  years  will  be  sur- 
rendered into  the  hands  of  another — without  repining — 
without  complaint  on  my  part — with  a  more  Hvely  recollection 
of  the  support  and  confidence  I  have  received  during  several 
years,  than  of  the  opposition  which  during  a  recent  period  I 
have  encountered.  In  relinquishing  power,  I  shaU  leave  a 
name,  severely  censured,  I  fear,  by  many  who,  on  pubUc 
grounds,  deeply  regret  the  severance  of  party  ties — deeply 
regret  that  severance,  not  from  interested  or  personal  motives, 
but  from  the  firm  conviction  that  fidehty  to  party  engagements 
— the  existence  and  maintenance  of  a  great  party — constitutes 
a  powerful  instrument  of  government  :  I  shall  surrender 
power  severely  censured  also,  by  others  who,  from  no  interested 
motive,  adhere  to  the  principle  of  protection,  considering  the 
maintenance  of  it  to  be  essential  to  the  welfare  and  interests 
of  the  country  :  I  shall  leave  a  name  execrated  by  every 
monopohst  who,  from  less  honourable  motives,  clamours  for 
protection  because  it  conduces  to  his  own  individual  benefit ; 
but  it  may  be  that  I  shall  leave  a  name  sometimes  remembered 


310  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

with  expressions  of  goodwill  in  the  abode  of  those  whose  lot 
it  is  to  labour,  and  to  earn  their  daily  bread  by  the  sweat  of 
their  brow,  when  they  shall  recruit  their  exhausted  strength 
with  abundant  and  untaxed  food,  the  sweeter  because  it  is 
no  longer  leavened  by  a  sense  of  injustice. 


RICHARD  COBDEN 

COBDEN  was  the  only  great  English  statesman  who  never  held 
office  of  any  kind.  Palmerston  pressed  upon  him  the  Presi- 
dency of  the  Board  of  Trade  in  1859.  But  he  declined  on  the 
ground  that  he  had  always  been  opposed  to  Palmerston 's 
foreign  policy.  The  two  principal  achievements  of  Cobden's 
public  life  were  the  repeal  of  the  Corn-laws  in  1846,  and  the 
arrangement  of  a  Commercial  Treaty  with  France  in  1860. 
Many  causes,  no  doubt,  co-operated  to  procure  the  removal  of 
the  duty  on  foreign  com.  But  the  principal  cause  was  the 
Anti-Com-Law  League,  and  of  that  League  Cobden  was  the 
soul.  Although  Bright  was  a  more  eloquent  speaker,  Cobden 
supplied  the  ammunition.  He  had  a  singular  capacity  for 
clothing  the  driest  and  hardest  statistics  with  life  and  anima- 
tion. His  simple,  homely  style  concealed  the  immense  pains 
he  had  taken  to  collect  and  marshal  every  available  fact  in 
the  most  suitable  and  telling  form.  The  famous  speech  which 
he  addressed  to  the  House  of  Commons  in  March,  1845,  is  a 
good  instance  of  this.  Ostensibly,  it  was  only  a  plea  for 
impartial  inquiry  by  a  Select  Committee  into  the  causes  of 
the  prevalent  distress.  But  so  masterly  was  the  presentation 
of  the  case  that,  when  Cobden  sat  down,  and  Peel's  colleagues 
urged  him  to  answer  the  speech  himself,  Peel  tore  up  his  notes, 
and  said,  "  Those  may  answer  it  who  can."  The  Government, 
in  refusing  a  Committee,  wished  to  suggest  that  there  was  no 
case  to  answer.  They  were  really  admitting  that  there  was 
no  answer  to  the  case.  The  Commercial  Treaty  with  France 
had  an  immediate  and  most  beneficial  result  in  largely  aug- 
menting trade  between  the  two  countries.  It  has,  however, 
been  described  as  inconsistent  with  the  fundamental  principle 
of  free  trade.  If,  it  may  be  argued,  free  trade  is  a  good  thing 
in  itself,  if  foreign  goods  are  admitted  without  duty  into  this 

311 


312  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

country  for  our  own  benefit,  and  not  for  other  people's,  com- 
mercial treaties  are  useless.  There  is  nothing  to  bargain  about. 
Our  tariff  being  adjusted  in  the  manner  best  suited  to  our 
requirements,  irrespective  of  what  other  nations  may  do,  we 
should  not  alter  it  to  obtain  concessions  from  foreign  govern- 
ments more  valuable  to  them  than  to  us.  For  abstract 
reasoning  of  this  kind,  however  sound  in  itself,  Cobden  never 
much  cared.  He  held  that  if  by  taking  more  French  wine  and 
more  French  silk  we  could  induce  France  to  take  more  British 
iron  and  more  British  coal,  we  ought  to  enjoy  the  advantage 
of  the  opportunity.  He  also  considered  that,  apart  altogether 
from  purely  economic  arguments,  the  more  two  countries 
traded  together,  the  more  likely  they  were  to  keep  the  peace. 
He  was  essentially  practical,  aiming  always  at  tangible  benefits 
rather  than  logical  victories.  He  was  dissatisfied  with  Peel's 
gradual  reduction  of  the  duties  on  corn,  extending  over  four 
years.  He  would  have  abolished  them  at  once.  He  after- 
wards gave  statistics  to  show  that  a  vast  amount  of  foreign 
speculation  injurious  to  British  farmers  was  encouraged  by 
the  knowledge  of  what  the  duty  would  be  till  the  end  of  1849, 
when  it  came  down  to  a  shilling  a  quarter. 

Free  Trade 

House  of  Commons,  March  ISth,  1845 

I  AM  relieved  on  this  occasion  from  any  necessity  to  apologise 
to  the  other  side  of  the  House  for  this  motion  having  emanated 
from  myself  ;  for  I  expressed  a  hope,  when  I  gave  my  notice, 
that  the  subject  would  be  taken  up  by  some  one  of  the  hon. 
members  opposite.  I  hope,  therefore,  that  in  any  reply 
which  may  be  offered  to  the  observations  I  am  about  to  submit 
to  the  consideration  of  the  House,  I  shall  not  hear,  as  I  did  in 
the  last  year,  that  this  motion  comes  from  a  suspicious  quarter. 
1  will  also  add,  that  I  have  so  arranged  its  terms  as  to  include 
in  it  the  objects  embraced  in  both  the  amendments  of  which 
notice  has  been  given  (Mr.  Woodhouse's  and  Mr.  S.  O'Brien's), 
and  therefore  I  conclude  that  the  hon.  members  who  have  given 


COBDEN  313 

those  notices  will  not  think  it  necessary  to  press  them,  but 
rather  will  concur  in  this  motion.  Its  object  is  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  Select  Committee  to  inquire  into  the  condition  of 
the  agricultural  interests,  with  a  view  to  ascertain  how  far 
the  law  affecting  the  importation  of  agricultural  produce  has 
affected  those  interests. 

Now,  that  there  is  distress  among  the  farmers  I  presume 
cannot  be  established  upon  higher  authority  than  that  of  those 
who  profess  to  be  '*the  farmers'  friends."  I  learn  from  those 
hon.  gentlemen  who  have  been  paying  their  respects  to  the 
Prime  Minister,  that  the  agriculturists  are  in  a  state  of  great 
embarrassment  and  distress.  I  find  one  gentleman  from 
Norfolk,  Mr.  Hudson,  stating  that  the  farmers  in  Norfolk  are 
paying  rents  out  of  capital ;  while  Mr.  Turner  from  Devon- 
shire assured  the  right  hon.  Baronet  (Sir  R.  Peel)  that  one  half 
of  the  smaller  farmers  in  that  country  are  insolvent,  that  the 
other  half  is  rapidly  hastening  to  the  same  condition,  and  that, 
unless  some  remedial  measures  are  adopted  by  the  House, 
they  will  be  plunged  into  irretrievable  poverty.  These 
accounts  from  those  counties  agree  with  what  I  hear  from 
other  sources,  and  I  wiU  put  it  to  hon.  members  opposite 
whether  the  condition  of  the  farmers  in  Suffolk,  Wiltshire,  and 
Hampshire  is  any  better.  I  will  put  it  to  county  members 
whether,  looking  to  the  whole  of  the  south  of  England  from 
the  confines  of  Nottinghamshire  to  the  Land's  End,  the  farmers 
are  not  in  a  state  of  embarrassment — whether,  as  a  rule,  that 
is  not  their  condition.  Then,  according  to  every  precedent 
in  the  House,  this  is  a  fit  and  proper  time  to  bring  forward 
this  motion  ;  and  I  will  venture  to  say,  that  if  the  Duke  of 
Buckingham  had  a  seat  in  this  House  he  would  do  what  he 
as  Lord  Chandos  did — move  such  a  resolution. 

The  distress  of  the  farmer  being  admitted,  the  next  question 
that  arises  is,  what  is  the  cause  of  this  distress  ?  Now,  I  feel 
the  greater  necessity  for  a  committee  of  inquiry,  because  I 
find  a  great  discrepancy  of  opinion  as  to  the  cause.  One 
right  hon.  gentleman  has  said  that  the  distress  is  local,  and 
moreover,  that  it  does  not  arise  from  legislation  ;  while  the 
hon.  member  for  Dorsetshire  (Mr.  Bankes)  declared  that  it  is 
general,  and  that  it  does  arise  from  legislation.  I  am  at  a  loss, 
indeed,  to  understand  what  this  protection  to  agriculture 
means,  because  I  find  such  contradictory  accounts  given  in  the 


314  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

House  by  the  promoters  of  it.  For  instance,  nine  months  ago 
the  hon.  member  for  Wolverhampton  (Mr.  Villiers)  brought 
forward  his  motion  for  the  repeal  of  the  Corn-laws  ;  and  the 
right  hon.  gentleman  then  at  the  head  of  the  Board  of  Trade 
(Mr.  Gladstone)  stated  in  reply  to  him,  that  the  last  Corn-law 
had  been  most  successful  in  its  operation,  and  he  took  great 
credit  to  the  Government  for  the  steadiness  of  price  obtained 
under  it.  As  these  things  are  so  often  disputed,  it  is  as  well 
to  give  the  quotation.     The  right  hon.  gentleman  said  : 

"  Was  there  any  man  who  had  supported  the  law  in  the  year  1842, 
who  could  honestly  say  that  he  had  been  disappointed  in  its  working  ? 
Could  anyone  point  out  a  promise  or  a  prediction  hazarded  in  the  course 
of  the  protracted  debates  upon  the  measure,  which  promise  or  prediction 
had  been  subsequently  falsified  ?  " 

Now,  let  the  House  recollect  that  the  right  hon.  gentleman 
was  speaking  when  wheat  was  56s.  8d.  ;  but  wheat  is  at  present 
45s.  The  right  hon.  Baronet  at  the  head  of  the  Government 
said  that  his  legislation  on  the  subject  had  nothing  to  do  with 
wheat  being  45s.  ;  but  how  is  the  difficulty  to  be  got  over, 
that  the  head  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  nine  months  ago,  claimed 
merit  to  the  Government  for  having  kept  up  wheat  to  that 
price  ?  These  discrepancies  in  the  Government  itself,  and 
between  the  Government  and  its  supporters,  render  it  more 
necessary  that  this  "  protection  "  should  be  inquired  into. 

I  must  ask.  What  does  it  mean  ?  We  have  prices  now  at 
45s.  I  have  been  speaking  within  the  last  week  to  the  highest 
authority  in  England — one  often  quoted  in  this  House — and 
I  learned  from  him  that,  with  another  favourable  harvest,  it 
was  quite  likely  that  wheat  would  be  at  35s.  What  does  this 
legislation  mean,  if  we  are  to  have  prices  fluctuating  from  56s. 
to  35s.  ?  Can  this  be  prevented  by  legislation  ?  That  is  the 
question.  There  is  a  rank  delusion  spread  abroad  among  the 
farmers  ;  and  it  is  the  duty  of  the  House  to  dispel  that  delusion, 
and  to  institute  an  inquiry  into  the  matter. 

But  there  is  a  difference  of  opinion  on  my  own  side  of  the 
House,  and  some  members,  representing  great  and  powerful 
interests,  think  the  farmers  are  suffering  because  they  have 
this  legislative  protection.  This  difference  of  opinion  makes 
the  subject  a  fit  and  proper  one  for  inquiry  in  a  Committee  ; 
and  I  am  prepared  to  bring  evidence  before  it,  to  show  that 
farmers   are   labouring   under  great   evils — evils   that   I   can 


COBDEN  3lS 

connect  with  the  Corn-laws,  though  they  appear  to  be  altogether 
differently  caused. 

The  first  great  evil  they  labour  under  is  a  want  of  capital. 
No  one  can  deny  it  ;  it  is  notorious.  I  do  not  say  it  disparag- 
ingly of  the  farmers.  The  farmers  of  this  country  are  just 
of  the  same  race  as  the  rest  of  Englishmen,  and,  if  placed 
in  the  same  situation,  would  be  as  successful  men  of  business 
and  traders  and  manufacturers  as  their  countrymen  ;  but  it 
is  notorious,  as  a  rule,  that  they  are  deficient  in  capital.  Hon. 
gentlemen  acquainted  with  farming  will  probably  admit  that 
£10  an  acre,  on  arable  land,  is  a  competent  capital  for  carrying 
on  the  business  of  farming  successfully  ;  but  I  have  made 
many  inquiries  in  all  parts  of  the  Kingdom,  and  I  give  it  as  my 
decided  conviction,  that  at  the  present  moment  the  farmers' 
capital  does  not  average  £5  an  acre,  taking  the  whole  of 
England  south  of  the  Trent,  and  including  all  Wales.  Though, 
of  course,  there  are  exceptions  in  every  county — men  of  large 
capital — men  farming  their  own  land — I  am  convinced  that 
this  is  true,  as  a  rule,  and  I  am  prepared  to  back  my  opinion 
by  witnesses  before  a  Committee.  Here,  then,  is  a  tract  of 
country  comprehending  probably  20,000,000  of  cultivable 
acres,  and  £100,000,000  more  capital  is  wanted  for  its 
cultivation. 

What  is  the  meaning  of  **  farming  capital "  ?  It  means 
more  manuring,  more  labour,  more  cattle,  larger  crops.  But 
let  us  fancy  a  country  in  which  there  is  a  deficiency  of  all 
those  things  which  ought  to  be  there,  and  then  guess  what 
must  be  the  condition  of  the.  labourers  wanting  employment 
and  food.  It  may  be  said  that  capital  would  be  there,  if  it 
were  a  profitable  investment.  I  admit  it ;  and  thus  the 
question  comes  to  be, — How  is  it,  that  in  a  country  over- 
flowing with  capital — where  there  is  a  plethora  in  every  other 
business — where  every  other  pursuit  is  abounding  with  money 
— when  money  is  going  to  France  for  railroads,  and  to  Penn- 
sylvania for  bonds — when  it  is  connecting  the  Atlantic  with 
the  Pacific  by  canals,  and  diving  to  the  bottom  of  Mexican 
mines  for  investment — it  yet  finds  no  employment  in  the  most 
attractive  of  all  spots,  the  soil  of  this  country  itself  ? 

Admitting  the  evil,  with  all  its  train  of  fearful  consequences, 
what  is  the  cause  of  it  ?  There  can  be  no  doubt  whatever, — 
it  is  admitted  by  the  highest  authorities,  that  the  cause  is 


316  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

this, — there  is  not  security  for  capital  on  the  land.  Capital 
shrinks  instinctively  from  insecurity  of  tenure,  and  we  have 
not  in  England  that  security  which  will  warrant  men  of  capital 
investing  their  money  in  the  soil.  Is  it  not  a  matter  worthy 
of  consideration,  how  far  this  insecurity  of  tenure  is  bound  up 
with  the  "  protection  "  system  of  which  hon.  members  opposite 
are  so  enamoured  ?  Suppose  it  could  be  shown  that  they  are 
in  a  vicious  circle  ;  that  they  have  made  politics  of  Corn-laws  ; 
that  they  wanted  voters,  to  retain  Corn-laws ;  that  they 
think  the  Corn-laws  a  great  mine  of  wealth,  and  therefore  will 
have  dependent  tenants,  that  they  may  have  votes  at  elections, 
and  so  retain  these  laws.  If  they  will  have  dependent  voters 
they  cannot  have  men  of  spirit  and  of  capital.  Then  their 
policy  reacts  upon  them  ;  if  they  have  not  men  of  skill  and 
capital,  they  cannot  have  protection  and  employment  for  the 
labourer  ;  and  then  comes  round  the  vicious  termination — 
pauperism,  poor-rates,  county-rates,  and  all  the  evils  from 
which  they  are  asking  the  Prime  Minister  to  relieve  them. 

But  here  I  have  to  quote  authorities,  and  I  shall  quote  some 
of  the  highest  consideration  with  the  opposite  side  of  the 
House.  I  will  just  state  the  opinion  of  the  hon.  member  for 
Berkshire  (Mr.  Pusey),  dehvered  at  the  meeting  of  the  Suffolk 
Agricultural  Society.     That  hon.  gentleman  said  : 

"  He  knew  this  country  well,  and  he  knew  there  was  not  a  place 
from  Plymouth  to  Berwick  in  which  the  landlords  might  not  make 
improvements  ;  but  when  the  tenant  was  short  of  money,  the  landlord 
generally  would  be  short  of  money,  too.  But  he  would  tell  them  how 
to  find  friends.  There  were  many  districts  where  there  was  a  great 
superfluity  not  only  of  useless  but  of  mischievous  timber  ;  and  if  they 
would  cut  that  down  which  excluded  the  sun  and  air,  and  fed  on  the 
soil,  and  sell  it,  they  would  benefit  the  farmer  by  cutting  it  down, 
and  they  would  benefit  the  farmer  and  labourer,  too,  by  laying  out  the 
proceeds  in  underdraining  the  soil.  There  was  another  mode  in  which 
they  might  find  money.  He  knew  that  on  some  properties  a  large  sum 
was  spent  in  the  preservation  of  game.  It  was  not  at  all  unusual  for 
the  game  to  cost  ;^500  or  £600  a  year  ;  and  if  this  were  given  up,  the 
money  would  employ  a  hundred  able-bodied  labourers  in  improving 
the  property.  This  was  another  fund  for  the  landlords  of  England 
to  benefit  the  labourers,  and  the  farmers  at  the  same  time." 

Again,  at  the  Colchester  agricultural  meeting : 

"  Mr.  Fisher  Hobbes  was  aware  that  a  spirit  of  improvement  was 
abroad.  Much  was  said  about  the  tenant-farmers  doing  more.  He 
agreed  they  might  do  more  :    the  soil  of  the  country  was  capable  of 


COBDEN  317 

greater  production  ;  if  he  said  one-fourth  more,  he  should  be  within 
compass.  But  that  could  not  be  done  by  the  tenant-farmer  alone  ; 
they  must  have  confidence  ;  it  must  be  done  by  leases — by  draining — 
by  extending  the  length  of  fields — by  knocking  down  hedge-rows,  and 
clearing  away  trees  which  now  shielded  the  com." 

But  there  was  still  higher  authority.  At  the  late  meeting 
at  Liverpool,  Lord  Stanley  declared  : 

"  I  say,  and  as  one  connected  with  the  land  I  feel  myself  bound  to  say 
it,  that  a  landlord  has  no  right  to  expect  any  great  and  permanent 
improvement  of  his  land  by  the  tenant,  unless  that  tenant  be  secured 
the  repayment  of  his  outlay,  not  by  the  personal  character  or  honour 
of  his  landlord,  but  by  a  security  which  no  casualties  can  interfere 
with — the  security  granted  him  by  the  terms  of  a  lease  for  years." 

Not  only  does  the  want  of  security  prevent  capital  from 
flowing  to  the  soil,  but  it  actually  hinders  the  improvement 
of  the  land  by  those  who  already  occupy  it.  There  are  many 
tenants  who  could  improve  their  land  if  they  were  made  secure  ; 
they  either  have  capital  themselves,  or  their  friends  can 
advance  it ;  but  with  the  want  of  leases,  with  the  want  of 
security,  they  are  deterred  from  laying  out  their  money. 
Everything  is  kept  "  from  year  to  year."  It  is  impossible  to 
farm  properly  unless  money  is  invested  in  land  for  more  than 
a  year.  A  man  ought  to  begin  farming  with  a  prospect  of 
waiting  eight  years  before  he  can  see  a  return  for  what  he  must 
do  in  the  first  year  or  two.  Tenants,  therefore,  are  prevented 
by  their  landlords  from  carrying  on  cultivation  properly. 
They  are  made  servile  and  dependent,  disinchned  to  improve- 
ment, afraid  to  let  the  landlord  see  that  they  could  improve 
their  farms,  lest  he  should  pounce  on  them  for  an  increase  of 
rent.  The  hon.  member  for  Lincolnshire  (Mr.  Christopher) 
is  offended  at  these  expressions  ;  what  said  that  hon.  member 
on  the  motion  of  the  hon.  member  for  Manchester  (Mr.  Gibson) 
last  year  on  agricultural  statistics  ? 

"  It  was  most  desirable  for  the  farmer  to  know  the  actual  quantity 
of  corn  grown  in  this  country,  as  such  knowledge  would  insure  steadiness 
of  prices,  which  was  infinitely  more  valuable  to  the  agriculturist  than 
fluctuating  prices.  But  to  ascertain  this  there  was  extreme  difficulty. 
They  could  not  leave  it  to  the  farmer  to  make  a  return  of  the  quantity 
which  he  produced,  for  it  was  not  for  his  interest  to  do  so.  If  in  any 
one  or  two  years  he  produced  four  quarters  per  acre  on  land  which  had 
previously  grown  but  three,  he  might  fear  lest  his  landlord  would  say, 
'  Your  land  is  more  productive  than  I  imagined,  and  I  must  therefore 
raise  your  rent.'  The  interest  of  the  farmers,  therefore,  would  be  to 
underrate,  and  to  furnish  low  returns." 


318  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

Here  is  a  little  evidence  of  the  same  kind  that  is  to  be 
gathered  from  the  meeting  of  the  South  Devon  Agricultural 
Association,  where  the  Rev.  C.  Johnson  said  : 

"  He  knew  it  had  been  thought  that  landlords  were  ready  to  avail 
themselves  of  such  associations,  on  account  of  the  opportunity  it 
afforded  them  of  diving  into  their  tenants'  affairs  and  opening  their 
eyes.  An  instance  of  this  occurred  to  him  at  a  recent  ploughing  match, 
where  he  met  a  respectable  agriculturist  whom  he  well  knew,  and  asked 
him  if  he  was  going  to  it.  He  said,  *  No.'  '  Why  ?  '  Because  he  did 
not  approve  of  such  things.  This  *  why  '  produced  another  '  why,' 
and  the  man  gave  a  reason  why  :  Suppose  he  sent  a  plough  and  man, 
with  two  superior  horses  ;  the  landlord  at  once  would  say,  *  This  man 
is  doing  too  well  on  my  estate,'  and  increase  the  rent." 

I  will  ask  the  landed  gentry  of  England  what  state  of  things 
is  this  that  the  farmer  dares  not  appear  to  have  a  good  pair 
of  horses,  or  to  derive  four  quarters  where  the  land  had  formerly 
produced  only  three.  Hon.  members  cheer,  but  I  ask,  is  it 
not  so  ?  I  must  say,  that  the  condition  of  things  indicated 
by  those  two  quotations  brings  the  farmer  very  near  down  in 
point  of  servihty  to  the  ryot  of  the  East.  The  one  takes  the 
utmost  care  to  conceal  the  amount  of  his  produce,  the  other 
suffers  the  bastinado,  rather  than  tell  how  much  com  is  grown. 
The  tenant,  indeed,  is  not  afraid  of  the  bastinado,  but  he  is 
kept  in  fear  of  a  distress  for  rent. 

This  is  the  state  of  tenant-farming  without  a  lease,  and  in 
England  a  lease  is  the  exception  and  not  the  rule.  But  even 
sometimes,  when  there  is  a  lease  or  agreement,  the  case  is  still 
worse,  for  the  clauses  and  covenants  are  of  such  an  obsolete 
and  preposterous  character,  that  I  will  defy  any  man  to  carry 
on  the  business  of  farming  properly  under  them.  I  will  just 
read  a  passage  from  a  Cheshire  lease — an  actual  lease — to  show 
in  what  sort  of  way  the  tenant-farmer  is  bound  down  : 

"  To  pay  the  landlord  ;^20  for  every  statute  acre  of  ground,  and  so  in 
proportion  for  a  less  quantity,  that  shall  be  converted  into  tillage, 
or  used  contrary  to  the  appointment  before  made  ;  and  £5  for  every 
hundredweight  of  hay,  thrave  of  straw,  load  of  potatoes,  or  cartload 
of  manure,  that  shall  be  sold  or  taken  from  the  premises  during  the 
term;  and  ;^10  for  every  tree  fallen,  cut  down,  destroyed,  cropped, 
lopped  or  topped,  or  willingly  suffered  so  to  be  ;  and  £20  for  every 
servant  or  other  person  so  hired  or  admitted  as  to  gain  a  settlement 
in  the  township  ;  and  £\0  per  statute  acre  and  so  in  proportion  for  a 
less  quantity  of  the  said  land,  which  the  tenant  shall  lot  off  or  underlet, 
such  sums  to  be  paid  on  demand  after  every  breach,  and  in  default  of 


COBDEN  319 

payment  to  be  considered  as  reserved  rent,  and  levied  by  distress  and 
sale,  as  rent  in  arrear  may  be  levied  and  raised  ;  and  to  do  six  days' 
boon  team  work  whenever  called  upon  ;  and  to  keep  for  the  landlord 
one  dog,  and  one  cock  or  hen  ;  and  to  make  no  marlpit  without  the 
landlord's  consent  first  obtained  in  \vriting,  after  which  the  same  is 
to  be  properly  filled  in  ;  nor  to  allow  any  inmate  to  remain  on  the 
premises  after  six  days'  notice  ;  nor  to  keep  nor  feed  any  sheep,  except 
such  as  are  used  for  the  consumption  of  the  family." 

What  is  such  an  instrument  as  this  ?     I  will  tell  the  House 

what  it  is.  It  is  a  trap  for  unwary  men — a  barrier  against 
capital  and  intelligence,  and  a  fetter  to  any  free  man. 
No  one  can  farm  under  such  a  lease.  The  hon.  member 
for  Shoreham  (Sir  C.  Burrell)  cheered  ;  but  if  hon.  members 
would  look  into  their  own  leases,  though  there  may  not  be 
the  "cocks  and  hens,  and  dogs,"  and  probably  not  the  *'  team- 
work," they  will  find  almost  as  great  absurdities.  These  docu- 
ments are  generally  taken  from  old,  dusty,  antediluvian 
remains,  that  some  lawyer's  clerk  drew  from  a  pigeon-hole,  and 
copied  out  for  every  incoming  tenant ;  something  that  had 
been  in  existence  perhaps  for  five  hundred  years.  You  give 
men  no  credit  for  being  able  to  discover  any  improvements  ; 
in  fact,  you  tie  them  down  from  improving  ;  you  go  upon  the 
assumption  that  there  will  be  no  improvement,  and  do  your 
best  to  prevent  it.  I  do  not  know  why  we  should  not  have 
leases  of  land  upon  terms  similar  to  those  in  leases  of  manu- 
factories, and  places  of  business  ;  nor  do  I  think  farming  can 
be  carried  on  as  it  ought  to  be  until  then.  A  man  may  take  a 
manufactory,  and  pay  ;£*  1,000  a  year  for  it.  An  hon.  member 
near  me  pays  more  than  ^^4,000  a  year  rent  for  his  manufactory 
and  machinery.  Does  he  covenant  as  to  the  manner  in  which 
that  machinery  is  to  be  worked,  and  as  to  the  revolutions  of 
his  spindles  ?  No  ;  his  landlord  lets  to  him  the  bricks  and 
mortar,  and  machinery.  The  machinery  was  scheduled  to 
him,  and,  when  his  lease  is  over,  he  must  leave  the  machinery 
in  the  same  state  as  when  he  found  it,  and  be  paid  for  the 
improvements.  The  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  (Mr. 
Goulburn)  cheers  that.  I  want  to  ask  his  opinion  on  a  similar 
lease  for  a  farm. 

I  am  rather  disposed  to  think  that  the  Anti-Com-law 
League  will  very  likely  form  a  joint-stock  association,  having 
none  but  Free-traders  in  that  body,  to  purchase  a  joint-stock 
estate,  and  have  a  model  farm,  taking  care  to  hav^  it  in  one  of 


320  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

the  rural  counties  where  they  all  think  there  is  the  greatest 
need  of  improvement — perhaps  Buckinghamshire  ;  and  there 
establish  a  model  farm,  and  a  model  homestead,  and  model 
cottages  (and  I  will  tell  the  noble  Lord,  the  member  for  Newark 
[Lord  J.  Manners]  that  we  shall  have  model  gardens,  without 
any  outcry  about  it)  ;  but  the  great  object  shall  be  to  have  a 
model  lease.  We  shall  have  as  a  farmer  a  man  of  intelligence, 
and  a  man  of  capital.  I  am  not  so  unreasonable  as  to  say  that 
you  ought  to  let  your  land  to  a  man  without  capital,  and  to 
one  who  is  not  intelligent ;  but  select  such  a  man,  with  intelli- 
gence and  capital,  and  you  cannot  give  him  too  wide  a  scope. 
You  will  find  such  a  man,  and  let  him  have  a  farm,  and  such  a 
lease  as  my  hon.  friend  took  his  factory  with.  He  shall  do  what 
he  likes  with  the  old  pasture  ;  if  he  can  make  more  of  it  with 
ploughing  it  up,  he  shall  do  so.  If  he  can  grow  white  crops 
every  year,  he  shall  do  so.  I  know  persons  who  are  doing  that 
in  more  places  than  one  in  this  country.  If  he  can  make  any 
improvement,  he  shall  make  it.  We  will  let  him  the  land  with 
a  schedule  of  the  state  of  tillage  on  the  farm,  and  will  bind  him 
to  leave  the  land  as  good  as  he  found  it.  It  shall  be  valued  ; 
and  if  in  an  inferior  state  when  he  leaves  it,  he  shall  com- 
pensate us  for  it :  if  it  be  in  a  superior  state,  he  shall  be  com- 
pensated accordingly  by  the  association.  You  will  think  this 
something  very  difficult,  but  the  association  will  give  him 
possession  of  the  farm,  with  everything  on  the  soil,  whether 
wild  or  tame.  We  will  give  him  absolute  control ;  there  shall 
be  no  gamekeeper  prowling  about,  and  no  sporting  over  his 
farm.  Where  is  the  difficulty  ?  You  may  take  as  stringent 
means  as  you  please  to  compel  the  punctual  payment  of  rent ; 
you  may  take  the  right  of  re-entry  if  the  rent  be  not  paid  ;  but 
take  the  payment  of  rent  as  the  sole  test  of  the  well-doing  of 
the  tenant,  and  so  long  as  he  pays  that  uniformly,  it  is  the  only 
test  you  need  have  ;  and  if  he  be  an  intelligent  man  and  a 
man  of  capital,  you  will  have  the  strongest  security  that  he 
will  not  waste  your  property. 

I  have  sometimes  heard  hon.  gentlemen  opposite  say,  "It 
is  all  very  weU  to  propose  such  leases,  but  we  know  many 
farmers  who  will  not  take  them."  An  hon.  member  cheers 
that.  What  does  that  argue  ?  That  by  a  process  which  the 
hon.  member  for  Lincolnshire  (Sir  John  Trollope)  has  described 
— that  degrading  process  which  renders  these  tenants  servile, 


COBDEN  321 

hopeless,  and  dejected — they  are  satisfied  to  remain  as  they 
are,  and  do  not  want  to  be  independent.  Hear  what  Professor 
Low  says  on  this  subject  : 

"  The  argument  has  again  and  again  been  used  against  the  extension 
of  leases,  that  the  tenants  themselves  set  no  value  on  them  ;  but  to  how- 
different  a  conclusion  ought  the  existence  of  such  a  feeling  amongst 
the  tenantry  of  a  country  to  conduct  us  !  The  fact  itself  shows  that 
the  absence  of  leases  may  render  a  tenantry  ignorant  of  the  means  of 
employing  their  owti  capital  \vith  advantage,  indisposed  to  the  exertions 
which  improvements  demand,  and  better  contented  \vith  an  easy  rent 
and  dependent  condition,  than  with  the  prospect  of  an  independence 
to  be  earned  by  increased  exertion." 

But  whilst  you  have  a  tenantry  in  the  state  described  and 
pictured  by  the  hon.  member  for  Lincolnshire,  what  must  be 
the  state  of  our  population  ?  The  labourers  can  never  be 
prosperous  where  the  tenantry  is  degraded.  You  may  go 
through  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  land,  and  you  will  find 
that  where  capital  is  most  abundant,  and  where  there  is  the 
most  intelligence,  there  you  will  find  the  labouring  classes  the 
most  happy  and  comfortable.  On  the  other  hand,  show  me  an 
impoverished  tenantry,  and  there  I  will  show  you  a  peasantry 
in  the  most  hopeless  and  degraded  condition  ;  as  in  the  north 
of  Devonshire,  for  instance.  I  have  proved  that  the  want  of 
<:apital  is  the  greatest  want  among  the  farmers,  and  that  the 
want  of  leases  is  the  cause  of  want  of  capital.  You  may  say, 
"  You  have  not  connected  this  with  the  Corn-laws  and  the 
protective  system."  I  will  read  to  you  the  opinion  of  an  hon. 
gentleman  who  sits  on  that  (the  Opposition)  side  of  the  House ; 
it  is  in  a  pubhshed  letter.     He  said  : 

"  The  more  I  see  of  and  practise  agriculture,  the  more  firmly  am  I 
convinced  that  the  whole  unemployed  labour  of  the  country  could, 
under  a  better  system  of  husbandry,  be  advantageously  put  into  opera- 
tion ;  and,  moreover,  that  the  Corn-laws  have  been  one  of  the  principal 
causes  of  the  present  system  of  bad  farming  and  consequent  pauperism. 
Nothing  short  of  their  entire  removal  will  ever  induce  the  average 
farmer  to  rely  upon  anything  else  than  the  legislature  for  the  payment 
of  his  rent,  his  belief  being  that  all  rent  is  paid  by  corn,  and  nothing 
else  than  corn  ;  and  that  the  legislature  can,  by  enacting  Corn-laws, 
create  a  price  which  will  make  his  rent  easy.  The  day  of  their  (the 
Corn-laws)  entire  abolition  ought  to  be  a  day  of  jubilee  and  rejoicing 
to  every  man  interested  in  land." 

I  do  not  stay  to  collect  the  causes  affecting  this  matter, 
and  to  inquire  whether  the  Corn-law  and  our  protective  system 

21  — (2170) 


322  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

have  caused  the  want  of  leases,  or  have  caused  the  want  of 
capital.  I  do  not  stop  to  prove  this,  for  this  reason  : — We  have 
adopted  a  system  of  legislation  by  which  we  propose  to  make 
farming  prosperous.  I  have  shown  you,  after  thirty  years' 
trial,  what  is  the  condition  of  the  farmers  and  labourers,  and 
you  will  not  deny  any  of  my  statements.  It  is,  then,  enough 
for  me,  after  thirty  years'  trial,  to  ask  you  to  go  into  Committee, 
and  to  inquire  if  something  better  cannot  be  devised.  I  am 
going,  independently  of  protection,  and  independently  of  the 
Corn-law,  to  contend  that  a  free  trade  in  corn  will  be  more 
advantageous  to  the  farmers,  and  with  the  farmers  I  include 
the  labourers  ;  and  I  beg  the  attention  of  the  hon.  member 
for  Gloucestershire  (Mr.  Charteris)  and  the  landowners.  I  am 
going  to  contend  that  free  trade  in  corn  will  be  more  beneficial 
to  these  classes  than  to  any  other  classes.  I  should  have 
contended  so  before  the  tariff,  but  now  I  am  prepared  to  do  so 
with  ten  times  more  force. 

The  right  hon.  gentleman  opposite  (Sir  R.  Peel)  has  passed 
a  law  to  enable  fat  cattle  to  be  imported,  and  there  have  been 
some  foreign  fat  cattle  selling  in  Smithfield  market  at  £15  or  £16 
and  £1  duty  ;  but  he  has  not  taken  off  the  duty  on  the  raw 
material.  He  did  not  do  so  with  regard  to  manufactures. 
Mr.  Huskisson  had  not  done  so  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  he 
began  by  taking  off  the  duty  on  the  raw  material,  without 
taking  off  the  duty  on  foreign  manufactures.  You  (the 
Ministers)  have  begun,  on  this  question,  at  the  opposite  end. 
I  would  admit  grain  free,  which  should  go  to  make  the  fat 
cattle. 

I  contend  that  by  this  protective  system  the  farmers 
throughout  the  country  are  more  injured  than  any  other  class 
of  the  community.  I  will  begin  with  clover.  The  hon. 
member  for  North  Northamptonshire  (Mr.  Stafford  O'Brien) 
put  a  question  to  the  right  hon.  Baronet  the  other  night,  and 
looked  so  alarmed  whilst  doing  so  that  I  wondered  what  was 
the  matter.  He  asked  the  right  hon.  Baronet  **  if  he  was  going 
to  admit  clover-seed  free  ?  "  That  is  to  be  excluded  ;  and  for 
whose  benefit  ?  I  ask  that  hon.  member  or  his  constituents, 
are  they  in  the  majority  of  cases  sellers  of  clover-seed  ?  I  will 
undertake  to  say  they  are  not.  How  many  counties  are  pro- 
tected by  th6  sale  of  clover-seed  being  secured  to  them  ?  I 
will  take  Scotland  ;    that  country  imports  it  from  England  ; 


COBDEN  323 

it  does  not  grow  it.  I  will  undertake  to  say  that  not  ten 
counties  in  the  United  Kingdom  are  interested  in  exporting 
clover-seed  out  of  their  own  borders.     There  is  none  in  Ireland. 

Take  the  case  of  Egyptian  beans.  I  see  the  hon.  member 
for  Essex  (Sir  J.  Tyrrell)  in  his  seat  :  in  that  county  they  can 
grow  beans  and  wheat  and  wheat  and  beans  alternately,  and 
send  them  to  Mark-lane  ;  but  how  is  it  with  the  poor  lands  of 
Surrey,  and  with  the  poor  lands  of  Wiltshire  ?  Take  the 
country  through,  and  how  many  counties  are  exporters  of 
beans  to  market  ?  You  are  taxing  the  whole  of  the  farmers 
who  cannot  export  beans  for  the  benefit  of  those  few  counties 
that  can  grow  them.  And  mark  where  you  can  grow  beans. 
It  is  where  the  soils  are  better  ;  it  is  not  in  one  case  in  ten  that 
a  farmer  can  grow  more  than  for  his  own  use,  or  be  able  to  send 
any  to  market ;  and  when  that  is  the  case,  the  farmer  can  have 
no  interest  in  keeping  up  the  price  to  prevent  importation. 

Take  oats.  How  many  farmers  have  oats  on  the  credit 
side  of  their  books,  as  an  item  to  rely  on  for  paying  their  rent  ? 
They  grow  oats  for  feeding  their  horses  ;  but  it  is  an  exception 
where  they  depend  on  their  crop  of  oats  for  the  payment  of 
rent.  Ireland  has  just  been  mulcted  by  the  tax  on  clover- 
seed.  Is  it  a  benefit  to  the  farmers  who  do  not  sell  oats  to 
place  a  tax  on  their  import,  they  having  no  interest  in  keeping 
up  the  money  price  of  oats  ? 

Take  the  article,  hops.  We  have  a  protective  duty  on  hops 
for  the  protection  of  particular  districts,  as  Kent,  Suffolk, 
and  Surrey  ;  but  they  in  return  have  to  pay  for  the  protection 
on  other  articles  which  they  do  not  produce. 

Take  cheese.  There  is  not  a  farmer  but  makes  his  own 
cheese  for  the  consumption  of  his  servants  ;  but  how  many 
send  it  to  market  ?  The  counties  of  Chester,  Gloucester, 
Wilts,  and  parts  of  Derbyshire  and  Leicester,  manufacture 
this  article  for  sale.  Here  are  four  or  five  counties  having  an 
interest  in  protecting  cheese.  But  you  must  recollect  that 
those  counties  are  heavily  taxed  in  the  articles  of  oats  and  beans 
and  com  ;  for  these  are  the  districts  where  they  most  want 
artificial  food  for  their  cattle. 

Take  the  whole  of  the  hilly  districts.  I  hope  the  hon. 
member  for  Nottinghamshire  (Mr.  Knight)  is  present.  He 
lives  in  Derbyshire,  and  employs  himself  in  rearing  good  cattle 
on  the  hills  ;    but  he  is  taxed  by  protection  for  his  oats,  or 


324  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

Indian  corn  or  beans.  That  hon.  member  told  me  the  other 
day  that  he  would  like  nothing  better  than  to  give  up  the 
protection  on  cattle,  if  he  could  only  go  into  the  market  and 
purchase  his  thousand  quarters  of  black  oats  free  from  pro- 
tective duty.  Take  the  hilly  districts  of  Wales,  or  take  the 
Cheviot  hills,  or  the  Grampian  hills  ;  they  are  not  benefited 
by  their  protection  on  those  articles  ;  they  want  provender 
for  their  cattle  in  the  cheapest  way  they  can  get  it.  The  only 
way  in  which  these  parts  of  the  country  can  improve  the  breed 
of  their  stock,  and  bring  their  farms  into  a  decent  state  of 
fertility,  is  to  have  food  cheap. 

But  I  will  go  further,  and  say  that  the  farmers  on  the  thin 
soils — I  mean  the  stock  farmers  in  parts  of  Hertfordshire — 
farmers  of  large  capital,  arable  farmers — are  deeply  interested 
in  having  a  free  importation  of  food  for  their  cattle,  because 
they  have  poor  land  which  does  not  contain  or  produce  the 
means  for  its  own  fertility  ;  and  it  is  only  by  bringing  in 
artificial  food  that  they  can  bring  their  land  into  a  state  to 
grow  good  crops.  I  have  been  favoured  with  an  estimate 
made  by  a  very  experienced  and  clever  farmer  in  Wiltshire  ; 
it  is  from  Mr.  Nathaniel  Atherton,  of  Rington.  I  will  read 
this  to  the  House  ;  and  I  think  that  the  statements  of  such 
men — men  of  intelligence  and  experience — ought  to  be  attended 
to.     Mr.  Nathaniel  Atherton,  Rington,  Wilts,  estimates : 

**  That  upon  400  acres  of  land  he  could  increase  his  profits  to  the 
amount  of  ;^280,  paying  the  same  rent  as  at  present,  provided  there 
was  a  free  importation  of  foreign  grains  of  all  kinds.  He  would  buy 
500  quarters  of  oats  at  15s.,  or  the  same  amount  in  beans  or  peas  at 
14s.  or  15s.  a  sack,  to  be  fed  on  the  land  or  in  the  yard  ;  by  which  he 
would  grow  additional  160  quarters  of  wheat  and  230  quarters  of  barley, 
and  gain  an  increased  profit  of  ;^300  on  his  sheep  and  cattle.  His 
plan  embraces  the  employment  of  an  additional  capital  of  ;^1,000,  and 
he  would  pay  ;^150  a  year  more  for  labour." 

I  had  an  opportunity,  the  other  day,  of  speaking  to  an 
intelligent  farmer  in  Hertfordshire — Mr.  Lattimore,  of  Wheat- 
hampstead  ;  he  stands  as  high  in  the  Hertfordshire  markets 
as  any  farmer,  as  a  man  of  skill,  of  abundant  capital,  and  of 
unquestionable  intelligence.  He  told  me  that  he  had  paid 
during  the  last  year  £230  in  enhanced  price  on  the  beans  and 
other  provender  which  he  had  bought  for  his  cattle,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  restrictions  on  food  of  foreign  growth,  and  that 


COBDEN  325 

this  sum  amounted  to  14s.  a  quarter  on  all  the  wheat  which 
he  had  sold  off  his  farm.  With  regard  to  Mr.  Atherton  and 
Mr.  Lattimore,  they  are  as  decided  advocates  of  free  trade  in 
grain  as  I  am. 

I  have  before  told  hon.  gentlemen  that  I  have  as  wide  and 
extensive  an  acquaintance  with  farmers  as  any  member  in 
this  House.  In  almost  every  county  I  can  give  them  the  names 
of  first-rate  farmers  who  are  as  much  Free-traders  as  I  am. 
I  told  the  secretary  of  the  much-dreaded  Anti-Com-law  League 
to  make  me  out  a  list  of  the  names  of  subscribers  to  the  League 
amongst  the  farmers.  There  are  upwards  of  a  hundred  in 
England  and  Scotland,  and  they  comprise  the  most  inteUigent 
men  that  are  to  be  found  in  the  Kingdom.  I  have  been  into 
the  Lothians  myself — into  Haddingtonshire.  I  went  and  spent 
two  or  three  days  amongst  the  farmers  there,  and  I  never  met 
with  a  more  intelligent  or  liberal-minded  body  of  men  in  the 
Kingdom.  They  do  not  want  restrictions  on  com  ;  they  say, 
"  Let  us  have  a  free  importation  of  linseed-cake  and  com, 
and  we  can  bear  competition  with  any  corn-growers  in  the 
world.  But  to  exclude  provender  for  cattle,  and  to  admit  fat 
cattle  duty  free,  was  one  of  the  greatest  absurdities  in  legisla- 
tion that  ever  was."  We  have  heard  of  absurdities  in  com- 
merce— of  sending  coffee  from  Cuba  to  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope, 
to  bring  it  back  to  this  country  under  the  law  ;  but  in  ten  years' 
time  people  will  look  back  with  more  amazement  at  our  policy, 
— that  whilst  we  are  sending  ships  to  Ichaboe  for  manure,  we 
are  excluding  oats,  and  beans,  and  Indian  com  for  fattening 
our  cattle,  which  would  give  us  a  thousand  times  more 
fertilising  manure  than  this  which  we  now  send  for. 

On  the  last  occasion  on  which  I  spoke  on  this  subject  in  this 
House  I  was  answered  by  the  right  hon.  gentleman,  the 
President  of  the  Board  of  Trade  (Mr.  Gladstone),  and  that 
gentleman  talked  of  the  Free-traders  throwing  poor  land  out 
of  cultivation,  and  throwing  other  land  out  of  tillage  into 
pasture.  I  hope  that  the  Anti-Com-law  League  will  not  be 
reproached  again  with  any  such  designs.  My  behef  is,  that 
the  upholders  of  protection  are  pursuing  the  very  course  to 
throw  land  out  of  cultivation  and  to  make  poor  land  unproduc- 
tive. Do  not  let  the  Free-traders  be  told  again  that  they  desire 
to  draw  the  labourers  from  the  land  that  they  may  reduce  the 
labourers'  wages  in  factories.     If  you  had  abundance  of  capital 


326  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

employed  on  your  farms,  and  cultivated  the  soil  with  the  same 
skill  that  the  manufacturers  conduct  their  business,  you  would 
not  have  population  enough  to  cultivate  the  land.  I  had 
yesterday  a  letter  from  Lord  Ducie,  and  he  has  given  the  same 
opinion,  that  if  the  land  were  properly  cultivated  there  would 
not  be  sufficient  labourers  to  till  it.  And  yet,  whilst  that  is 
the  fact,  you  are  chasing  your  population  from  village  to  village 
and  passing  a  law  to  compel  the  support  of  paupers.  You 
are  smuggling  the  people  away  and  sending  them  to  the  anti- 
podes, whereas  if  your  lands  were  properly  cultivated  you 
would  be  trying  to  lure  them  back,  as  the  most  valuable  part 
of  your  possessions.  It  is  by  this  means  only  that  you  can 
avert  very  serious  disasters  in  the  agricultural  districts. 

On  the  last  occasion  of  my  addressing  this  House,  a  great 
deal  was  said  about  disturbing  great  interests.  It  was  said 
that  this  inquiry  could  not  be  gone  into,  because  it  would 
disturb  a  great  interest.  I  have  no  desire  to  undervalue  the 
agricultural  interest.  I  have  heard  it  said  that  the  agricul- 
tural classes  are  the  greatest  consumers  of  our  goods,  and  that 
we  had  better  look  after  our  home  trade.  Now  what  sort  of 
consumers  of  manufactures  do  you  think  the  agricultural 
labourers  could  be  with  the  wages  they  get  ?  Understand  me, 
I  am  arguing  for  a  principle  which  I  solemnly  believe  will 
raise  the  wages  of  the  people.  I  believe  there  would  be  no 
men  starving  on  7s.  a  week  if  there  were  abundance  of  capital 
and  skill  employed  in  cultivating  the  soil.  But,  I  ask,  what 
is  this  home  consumption  of  manufactures  ?  I  have  taken 
some  pains  to  ascertain  the  amount  laid  out  by  agricultural 
labourers  and  their  families  for  clothing.  It  may  probably 
startle  hon.  members  when  I  tell  them  that  we  have  exported 
more  goods  to  Brazil  in  one  year  than  has  been  consumed  in 
a  year  by  the  agricultural  peasantry  and  their  families.  You 
know,  by  the  last  census,  that  there  are  960,000  agricultural 
labourers  in  England  and  Wales,  and  I  can  undertake  to  say, 
from  inquiries  I  have  made,  that  each  of  these  men  does  not 
spend  30s.  a  year  in  manufactures  for  his  whole  family,  if  the 
article  of  shoes  be  excepted.  I  say  that,  with  the  exception 
only  of  shoes,  the  agricultural  labourers  of  England  and  Wales 
do  not  spend  £1,500,000  per  annum  in  the  purchase  of  manu- 
factured goods,  clothing,  and  bedding.  Then,  I  would  ask, 
what  can  they  pay,  on  8s.  a  week,  to  the  revenue  ?     I  am 


CDBDEN  327 

satisfied,  and  hon.  members  may  satisfy  themselves,  from 
the  statistical  returns  on  the  table,  that  agricultural  labourers 
do  not  pay  per  head  15s.  a  year  to  the  revenue  ;  the  whole  of 
their  contributions  to  the  revenue  do  not  amount  to  £700,000 
a  year  ;  and,  I  ask,  when  hon.  members  opposite  have  by  their 
present  system  brought  agriculture  to  its  present  pass,  can 
they  have  anything  to  fear  from  risking  a  change,  or,  at  any 
rate,  from  risking  an  inquiry  ? 

On  the  last  occasion  that  I  addressed  the  House  on  this 
subject,  I  laboured  to  prove  that  we  have  no  reason  to  fear 
foreign  competition  if  restrictions  were  removed,  and  I  stated 
facts  to  show  that.  On  the  present  occasion  I  shall  not  dwell 
on  that  topic  ;  but  still,  as  many  people  are  possessed  with 
the  idea,  that  if  the  ports  were  opened  com  will  be  to  be  had 
for  nothing — and  that  is  one  of  the  favourite  fallacies — I  may 
be  allowed  to  offer  a  few  remarks  upon  the  subject.  People 
continue  to  hold  this  doctrine,  and  the}^  argue,  "  Now  that 
prices  are  low,  com  is  coming  in  ;  but  if  you  had  not  a  duty  of 
20s.  a  quarter,  is  it  possible  to  say  what  would  be  the  quantity 
that  would  come  in  ?  "  This  is  said  ;  but  I  hope  it  is  not  dis- 
honestly said  ;  I  hope  the  argument  is  founded  on  a  confusion 
between  the  nominal  and  the  real  prices  of  com.  The  price 
of  wheat  at  Dantzic  is  now  a  nominal  price.  In  January, 
1838,  wheat  at  Dantzic  was  at  a  nominal  price,  there  being 
no  one  to  purchase  from  England  ;  but  in  July  and  August 
of  that  year,  when  a  failure  of  the  harvest  here  was  appre- 
hended, the  price  at  Dantzic  rose,  and  by  the  end  of  December 
in  the  same  year  the  price  at  Dantzic  was  double  what  it  had 
been  in  January,  and  wheat  there  averaged  40s.  a  quarter  for 
three  years,  1839,  1840,  1841.  Now  I  mention  this  for  the 
purpose  of  asking  the  attention  of  hon.  members  opposite 
to  it,  and  I  entreat  them,  with  this  fact  before  them,  not  to 
go  down  and  alarm  their  tenantry  about  the  danger  of  foreign 
competition.  They  ought  to  take  an  opposite  course — the 
course  which  would  enable  them  to  compete  with  foreigners. 
Their  present  course  is  the  worst  they  could  take,  if  they  wish 
to  compete  with  foreigners. 

I  was  about  to  allude  to  a  case  which  referred  to  the  hon. 
member  for  Shoreham  (Sir  C.  Burrell),  who  has  lately  let  in  a 
new  light  upon  agricultural  gentlemen.  The  country  is  now 
told  that  its  salvation  is  to  arise  from  the  cultivation  of  flax. 


328  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

This  was  stated  by  the  Flax  Agricultural  Improvement  Associa- 
tion, Lord  Rendlesham  President,  of  which  I  have  in  my 
hand  a  report,  wherein,  after  stating  that  her  Majesty's  Minis- 
ters were  holding  out  no  hopes  of  legislative  assistance  to  the 
agricultural  body,  they  then  called  upon  the  nation  to  support 
them,  on  the  ground  that  they  were  going  to  remedy  the 
grievances  under  which  the  agricultural  interest  laboured.  I 
observe  that  Mr.  Warner,  the  great  founder  of  this  Association, 
was  visiting  Sussex  lately,  and  at  a  dinner  at  which  the  hon. 
Baronet  (Sir  C.  Burrell)  presided,  after  the  usual  loyal  toasts, 
"  Mr.  Warner  and  the  cultivation  of  flax  "  was  proposed. 
Now,  when  the  hon.  Baronet  did  this,  probably  he  was  not 
aware  that  he  was  furnishing  the  most  deadly  weapon  to  the 
Lecturers  of  the  Anti-Corn-law  League.  The  country  is  told 
that  unless  they  have  a  high  protective  duty  the  farmers 
cannot  get  a  remunerative  price  for  the  wheat  they  grow. 
They  have  a  protective  duty  of  20s.  a  quarter  on  wheat,  and 
one  quarter  of  wheat  was  just  worth  a  hundredweight  of  flax  ; 
yet,  although  against  Polish  wheat  they  have  a  protection 
of  20s.,  the  protective  duty  on  a  hundredweight  of  flax  is  just 
Id.  Now,  I  did  not  hear  a  murmur  when  the  right  hon. 
Baronet  proposed  to  take  off  that  tax  of  Id.  But  we  are  told 
that  the  English  agriculturist  cannot  compete  with  the  foreigner 
on  account  of  the  abundance  of  labour  he  has  the  command 
of,  especially  in  the  case  of  the  serf-labour  which  is  employed 
somewhere  up  the  Baltic.  Now,  flax  comes  from  up  the  Baltic, 
and  yet  they  have  no  protection  upon  it.  Then  it  is  insisted 
that  we  cannot  contend  against  foreign  wheat,  because  it 
takes  so  much  labour  to  raise  wheat  in  this  country  ;  yet  it 
takes  as  much  labour  to  raise  flax.  How,  then,  are  we  to 
contend  against  foreign  flax  ?  Nevertheless,  the  hon.  Baronet 
undertook  to  restore  prosperity  to  the  country  by  means 
of  his  flax,  which  was  in  this  helpless  state  for  want  of 
protection. 

The  hon.  Baronet  will  forgive  me — I  am  sure  he  will,  because 
he  looks  as  if  he  will — while  I  allude  again  to  the  subject  of 
leases.  The  hon.  Baronet,  on  the  occasion  I  have  alluded  to, 
complained  that  it  was  a  great  pity  the  farmers  did  not  grow 
more  flax  ;  but  it  is  curious  that  I  should  have  since  seen  it 
stated  in  a  Brighton  paper — the  hon.  Baronet's  county  paper 
— I  do  not  know  how  truly — that  the  hon.   Baronet's  own 


COBDEN  329 

tenants  have  leases  which  forbid  them  to  grow  flax.  How- 
ever, it  is  quite  probable  the  hon.  Baronet  does  not  know 
what  covenants  there  are  in  his  leases  ;  but,  be  that  as  it  may, 
at  any  rate  it  is  very  common,  I  know,  to  insert  in  leases  a 
prohibition  to  cultivate  flax.  This  just  shows  the  manner  in 
which  the  landlords  carry  on  the  agriculture  of  the  country. 
The  original  notion  of  the  injury  done  by  flax  to  the  land  was 
derived,  I  beheve,  from  Virgil,  who  stated  something  to  the 
effect  that  flax  was  very  scourging  to  the  land.  I  have  no 
doubt  it  was  from  this  source  that  some  learned  lawyer  has 
derived  the  usual  covenant  on  this  subject  in  leases. 

I  have  alluded  to  the  condition  of  the  agricultural  labourers 
at  the  present  time  ;  but  I  feel  bound  to  say,  that  whilst  the 
farmers  are  in  a  worse  position  than  they  have  been  for  the  last 
ten  years,  I  believe  the  agricultural  labourers  have  passed  the 
winter,  though  it  was  a  five  months'  winter,  and  severe,  with 
less  suffering  from  distress  than  the  previous  winters.  I 
mention  this  because  it  is  a  remarkable  proof  of  the  degree 
in  which  a  low  price  of  food  is  beneficial  to  the  labouring  classes. 
I  can  demonstrate  that  in  the  manufacturing  districts,  when- 
ever food  is  dear,  wages  are  low ;  and  that  whenever  food  is 
low,  wages  rise.  That  the  manufacturers  can  prove.  Then  I 
stated  it  as  my  own  opinion,  that  the  agricultural  labourers 
are  in  a  better  state  than  they  were  in  previous  winters.  But 
does  not  that  show  that  the  agricultural  labourers,  having  only 
just  so  much  wages  as  will  find  them  in  subsistence,  derive 
benefit  from  the  plenty  of  the  first  necessaries  of  life  ?  Their 
wages  do  not  rise  in  the  same  proportion  as  the  price  of  food 
rises,  but  then  neither  do  their  wages  fall  in  the  same  propor- 
tion as  the  price  of  food  falls.  Therefore  in  all  cases  the 
agricultural  labourers  are  in  a  better  state  when  food  is  low 
than  when  it  is  high. 

Now,  I  am  bound  to  state,  that  whatever  is  the  condition  of 
the  agricultural  labourer,  I  beheve  the  farmer  is  not  responsible 
for  that  condition  while  he  is  placed  as  at  present.  I  have 
heard  many  exhortations  to  the  farmer  that  he  must  employ 
more  labour.  I  beheve  the  farmer  is  very  unjustly  required 
to  do  this.  The  farmer  stands  between  the  landlord  and  the 
suffering  peasantry.  It  is  rather  hard  in  the  landlord  to  point 
the  farmer  out  as  the  cause  of  the  want  of  employment  for 
labour — as   the   man   to   be   marked.     Lord   Hardwicke   has 


330  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

lately  made  an  address  to  the  labourers  of  Haddenham,  in 
which  he  said  : 

"  Conciliate  your  employers,  and,  if  they  do  not  perform  their  duty 
to  you  and  themselves,  address  yourselves  to  the  landlords  ;  and  I 
assure  you  that  you  will  find  us  ready  to  urge  our  own  tenants  to  the 
proper  cultivation  of  their  farms,  and,  consequently,  to  the  just 
employment  of  the  labourer." 

That  is  the  whole  question.  I  think  the  duty  rests  with  the 
landlords,  and  that  it  is  the  landlords,  and  not  the  employers, 
who  are  in  fault.  The  landlords  have  absolute  power  in  the 
country.  There  is  no  doubt  about  it — they  can  legislate  for 
the  benefit  of  the  labourers  or  of  themselves,  as  they  please. 
If  the  results  of  their  legislation  have  failed  to  secure  due 
advantages  to  the  labourer,  they  have  no  right  to  call  on  the 
farmers  to  do  their  duty,  and  furnish  the  labourers  with  the 
means  of  support.  I  lately  saw  a  labourer's  certificate  at 
Stowupland,  in  Suffolk,  placed  over  the  chimneypiece  in  a 
labourer's  cottage.     It  was  this  : 

"  West  Suffolk  Agricultural  Association,  established  1833,  for  the 
advancement  of  agriculture,  and  the  encouragement  of  industry  and 
skill  and  good  conduct  among  labourers  and  servants  in  husbandry. 
President,  the  Duke  of  Grafton,  Lord  Lieutenant  of  the  county.  This 
is  to  certify,  that  a  prize  of  £1  was  awarded  to  William  Birch,  aged  82, 
labourer,  of  the  parish  of  Stowupland,  in  West  Suffolk,  September  25, 
1840,  for  having  brought  up  nine  children  without  relief,  except  when 
flour  was  very  dear,  and  for  having  worked  on  the  same  farm  twenty- 
eight  years.     (Signed)  Robert  Rushbrooke,  Chairman." 

After  a  severe  winter,  with  little  employment  to  be  had,  I 
congratulate  the  country  that  we  have  fewer  agricultural 
labourers  in  the  workhouses,  and  fewer  pining  in  our  streets 
from  want,  than  in  former  years  ;  but  a  bad  case  at  the  best 
is  the  condition  of  the  agricultural  labourer,  and  you  will  have 
to  look  out,  before  it  is  too  late,  how  you  are  to  employ  him. 
The  last  census  shows  that  you  cannot  employ  your  own 
labourers  in  the  agricultural  districts.  How,  then,  are  you  to 
employ  them  ?  You  say,  there  are  too  many  of  them.  That 
is  an  evil  which  will  press  on  you  more  and  more  every  year  : 
what,  then,  are  you  to  do  ?  Are  you,  gentry  of  England,  to 
sit  with  your  arms  folded,  and  propose  nothing  ?  I  am  only 
here  to-night  because  you  have  proposed  nothing.  We  aU 
know  that  the  allotment  system  has  been  taken  up  ;  it  is  a 
plaything  ;   it  is  a  failure,  and  it  is  well  for  some  of  you  that 


COBDEN  331 

you  have  wiser  heads  to  lead  you  than  your  own,  or  you  would 
shortly  be  in  precisely  the  same  situation  as  they  are  in  Ireland  ; 
but  with  this  increase  to  the  difficulty  of  that  situation,  that 
they  do  contrive  to  maintain  the  rights  of  property  there  with 
the  aid  of  the  English  Exchequer  and  20,000  bayonets  ;  but 
bring  your  own  country  into  the  same  condition,  and  where 
will  be  your  rents  ? 

What,  then,  do  you  propose  to  do  ?  Nothing  this  year  to 
benefit  the  great  mass  of  the  agricultural  population  !  You 
admit  the  farmer's  capital  is  diminished — that  he  is  in  a  worse 
state  than  he  was.  How  to  increase  the  confidence  of  capital- 
ists in  the  farmers'  power  of  retrieving  themselves  ?  How 
this  is  to  be  done  is  the  question.  I  cannot  believe  you  are 
going  to  make  this  a  political  game.  It  was  well  said  that 
the  last  election  was  an  agricultural  election  ;  and  there  are 
two  hundred  members  sitting  behind  the  right  hon.  Baronet ; 
that  is  the  proof  of  it.  Don't  quarrel  with  me  because  I  have 
imperfectly  stated  my  case  ;  I  have  done  my  best ;  I  ask  what 
have  you  done  ?  I  tell  you  this  "  protection,**  as  it  is  called, 
has  been  a  failure.  It  failed  when  wheat  was  80s.  a  quarter, 
and  you  know  what  was  the  condition  of  the  farmer  in  1817. 
It  failed  when  wheat  was  60s.,  and  you  know  what  was  the 
condition  of  the  farmer  in  1835.  And  now  it  has  failed  again 
with  the  last  amendments  you  have  made  in  the  law,  for  you 
have  confessed  to  what  is  the  condition  of  the  agricultural 
tenantry.  What,  then,  is  the  plan  you  propose  ?  I  hope 
that  this  question  was  not  made  a  pretence — a  political  game — 
at  the  last  election  ;  that  you  have  not  all  come  up  as  mere 
politicians.  There  are  politicians  in  this  House  who  look 
with  ambition — and  probably  in  their  case  it  is  a  justifiable 
ambition — to  the  high  offices  of  the  State  ;  there  may  be  men 
here  who  by  thirty  years'  devotion  to  politics  have  been 
pressed  into  a  groove  in  which  it  is  difficult  for  them  to  avoid 
going  forward,  and  are,  may  be,  maintaining  the  same  course 
against  their  convictions.  I  make  allowance  for  them  ;  but 
the  great  body  of  you  came  up  not  as  politicians,  but  as  friends 
of  the  agricultural  interest ;  and  to  you  I  now  say,  what  are 
you  going  to  do  ?  You  lately  heard  the  right  hon.  Baronet 
at  the  head  of  the  Government  say,  that  if  he  could  restore 
protection,  it  would  not  benefit  the  agricultural  interest.  Is 
that  your  belief  ?     or  are  you  acting  on  your  convictions, 


332  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

or  performing  your  duty  in  this  House,  by  following  the  right 
hon.  Baronet  into  the  lobby  when  he  refuses  an  inquiry  and 
investigation  into  the  condition  of  the  very  men  who  send  you 
up  here  ?  With  mere  politicians,  I  have  no  right  to  hope  to 
succeed  ;  but  give  me  a  committee,  and  I  will  explode  the 
delusion  of  agricultural  protection  ;  I  will  produce  such  a 
mass  of  evidence,  and  call  authorities  so  convincing,  that  when 
the  blue  book  shall  be  sent  out,  I  am  convinced  that  protection 
will  not  live  two  years. 

Protection  is  a  very  convenient  vehicle  for  politicians ; 
the  cry  of  "  protection  "  won  the  last  election  ;  and  politicians 
looked  to  secure  honours,  emoluments,  places  by  it ;  but  you, 
the  gentry  of  England,  are  not  sent  up  for  such  objects.  Is, 
then,  that  old,  tattered  and  torn  flag  to  be  kept  up  for  the 
politicians,  or  will  you  come  forward  and  declare  that  you  are 
ready  to  inquire  into  the  state  of  the  agricultural  interests  ?  I 
cannot  think  that  the  gentlemen  of  England  can  be  content  to 
be  made  mere  drum-heads,  to  be  sounded  by  the  Prime  Minister 
of  England — to  be  made  to  emit  notes,  but  to  have  no  articulate 
sounds  of  their  own.  You,  gentlemen  of  England,  the  high 
aristocracy  of  England,  your  forefathers  led  my  forefathers  ; 
you  may  lead  us  again  if  you  choose  ;  but  though — longer  than 
any  other  aristocracy — you  have  kept  your  power,  while  the 
battlefield  and  the  hunting-field  were  the  tests  of  manly 
vigour,  you  have  not  done  as  the  noblesse  of  France  or  the 
hidalgos  of  Madrid  have  done  ;  you  have  been  Englishmen, 
not  wanting  in  courage  on  any  call.  But  this  is  a  new  age  ; 
the  age  of  social  advancement,  not  of  feudal  sports  ;  you  belong 
to  a  mercantile  age  ;  you  cannot  have  the  advantage  of  com- 
mercial rents  and  retain  your  feudal  privileges,  too.  If  you 
identify  yourselves  with  the  spirit  of  the  age,  you  may  yet  do 
well ;  for  I  teU  you  that  the  people  of  this  country  look  to  their 
aristocracy  with  a  deep-rooted  prejudice — an  hereditary 
prejudice,  I  may  call  it — in  their  favour  ;  but  your  power  was 
never  got,  and  you  will  not  keep  it  by  obstructing  the  spirit  of 
the  age  in  which  you  live.  If  you  are  found  obstructing  that 
progressive  spirit  which  is  calculated  to  knit  nations  more 
closely  together  by  commercial  intercourse  ;  if  you  give  nothing 
but  opposition  to  schemes  which  almost  give  life  and  breath 
to  inanimate  nature,  and  which  it  has  been  decreed  shall  go  on, 
then  you  are  no  longer  a  national  body. 


COBDEN  333 

There  is  a  widely-spread  suspicion  that  you  have  been  tam- 
pering with  the  feelings  of  your  tenantry — you  may  read  it  in 
the  organ  of  your  party — this  is  the  time  to  show  the  people 
that  such  a  suspicion  is  groundless.  I  ask  you  to  go  into  this 
Committee — I  will  give  you  a  majority  of  county,  members — 
you  shall  have  a  majority  of  members  of  the  Central  Agricul- 
tural Protection  Association  in  the  committee  ;  and  on  these 
terms  I  ask  you  to  inquire  into  the  causes  of  the  distress  of  our 
agricultural  population.  I  trust  that  neither  of  those  gentle- 
men who  have  given  notice  of  amendments  will  attempt  to 
interfere  with  me,  for  I  have  embraced  the  substance  of  their 
amendments  in  my  motion.  I  am  ready  to  give  those  hon. 
gentlemen  the  widest  range  they  please  for  their  inquiries.  I 
only  ask  that  this  subject  may  be  fairly  investigated.  Whether 
I  establish  my  principle,  or  you  establish  yours,  good  must 
result  from  the  inquiry  ;  and  I  do  beg  and  entreat  of  the 
honourable,  independent  country  gentlemen  in  this  House, 
that  they  will  not  refuse  on  this  occasion,  to  sanction  a  fair, 
full,  and  impartial  inquiry. 


ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

Lincoln  was  of  all  American  orators  at  once  the  most  homely 
and  the  most  eloquent.  His  speech  at  Gettysburg,  and  the 
second  of  his  two  Inaugural  Addresses,  are  models  of  classical 
rhetoric.  But  when  he  left  his  home  in  Illinois  for  Washington 
after  his  first  election,  he  spoke  to  the  friends  and  neighbours 
who  came  to  see  him  off  with  a  simple  unaffected  dignity  and 
tenderness  which  no  artificial  elaboration  could  surpass.  Into 
most  of  his  speeches,  terse  and  vigorous  as  they  are,  he 
wove  racy  and  appropriate  anecdotes  which,  however  teUing 
at  the  time,  hardly  bear  reproduction  now.  His  genuine 
humour  was  entirely  his  own,  the  fruit  of  a  meditative, 
reflective  temper,  habitually  dwelling  upon  the  incongruities 
of  life.  He  was  quite  incapable  of  being  conventional.  But 
he  had  a  singular  knack  of  saying  the  right  thing  in  the 
right  way,  the  result  partly  of  human  sympathy,  and  partly 
of  shrewd  observation.  The  duty  he  had  to  discharge  might 
weU  have  seemed  insurmountable.  It  was  not,  he  often  said, 
his  business  as  President  to  put  down  or  to  maintain  slavery 
as  an  institution.  He  had  to  uphold  the  Union,  and  to  treat 
those  who  attacked  it,  on  whatever  ground,  as  enemies.  He 
did  what  he  could  to  avoid  civil  war.  He  never  attempted  to 
interfere  with  slavery  in  the  old  States  until  the  necessities 
of  the  war  compelled  him  to  issue  his  decree  of  emancipation. 
He  was  in  truth  a  strict  constitutionalist.  By  profession  a 
lawyer,  he  was  ready  to  argue  the  limits  of  State  and  Federal 
rights  in  the  vain  hope  of  avoiding  hostilities.  When  he 
found  that  they  could  no  longer  be  avoided,  he  protested  with 
the  utmost  solemnity,  and  with  undoubted  sincerity,  that  they 
had  been  forced  upon  him  against  his  will.  He  never  ceased 
to  regard  the  Southerners  as  his  fellow-citizens,  or  to  feel  the 
horror  of  being  engaged  in  domestic  strife.  His  humour  had 
a  strain  of  melancholy,  as  of  a  man  placed  in  circumstances 

334 


LINCOLN  335 

not  of  his  choosing,  and  not  to  his  taste.  The  principal  charac- 
teristic of  his  speaking  was  a  determination  to  inspirit  his 
friends  without  insulting  his  foes.  He  was  always  trying  to 
soften  asperity,  to  heal  wounds,  to  prepare  for  the  time  when 
peace  would  return.  Although  during  his  life  he  was  subject 
to  much  misconception,  history  has  justified  his  methods,  and 
shown  that  he  did  all  he  could  to  diminish  the  causes  of  dispute. 
^  He  could  do  little  by  speaking.  He  succeeded,  however,  in 
impressing  even  those  most  strongly  opposed  to  him  with  a 
sense  of  his  perfect  fairness,  his  wide  comprehension,  and 
his  extreme  reluctance  to  take  any  step  which  would  be 
irrevocable,  or  leave  bitterness  behind  it. 

Address  delivered  at  the  Dedication  of  the  Cemetery 
at  Gettysburg,  Nov.  19th,  1863 

Four  score  and  seven  years  ago  our  fathers  brought  forth 
on  this  continent  a  new  nation,  conceived  in  Liberty,  and 
dedicated  to  the  proposition  that  all  men  are  created  equal. 

Now  we  are  engaged  in  a  great  civil  war,  testing  whether 
that  nation,  or  any  nation  so  conceived  and  so  dedicated,  can 
long  endure.  We  are  met  on  a  great  battlefield  of  that  war. 
We  have  come  to  dedicate  a  portion  of  that  field,  as  a  final 
resting-place  for  those  who  here  gave  their  hves  that  that 
nation  might  live.  It  is  altogether  fit  and  proper  that  we 
should  do  this. 

But,  in  a  larger  sense,  we  cannot  dedicate — we  cannot 
consecrate — we  cannot  hallow  this  ground.  The  brave  men, 
living  and  dead,  who  struggled  here,  have  consecrated  it,  far 
above  our  poor  power  to  add  or  detract.  The  world  will  Httle 
note,  nor  long  remember,  what  we  say  here,  but  it  can  never 
forget  what  they  did  here.  It  is  for  us  the  living,  rather,  to 
be  dedicated  here  to  the  unfinished  work  which  they  who 
fought  here  have  thus  far  so  nobly  advanced.  It  is  rather  for 
us  to  be  here  dedicated  to  the  great  task  remaining  before  us 
— that  from  these  honoured  dead  we  take  increased  devotion 
to  that  cause  for  which  they  gave  the  last  fuU  measure  of 
devotion — that  we  here  highly  resolve  that  these  dead  shall  not 
have  died  in  vain — that  this  nation,  under  God,  shall  have  a 


336  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

new  birth  of  freedom — and  that  government  of  the  people, 
by  the  people,  for  the  people,  shall  not  perish  from  the  earth. 

Address  at  his  Second  Inauguration,  March  4th,  1865 

Fellow-Countrymen  :  At  this  season,  appearing  to  take 
the  oath  of  the  Presidential  office,  there  is  l^s  occasion  for  an 
extended  address  than  there  was  at  first.  Then,  a  statement 
somewhat  in  detail  of  a  course  to  be  pursued  seemed  very 

)<j^j&ttinjg  and  proper.  Now,  at  the  expiration  of  four  years, 
during  which  public  declarations  have  been  constantly  called 
forth  on  every  point  and  phase  of  the  great  contest  which 
still  absorbs  the  attention  and  engrosses  the  energies  of  the 
nation,  little  that  is  new  could  be  presented.  The  progress  of 
our  arms,  upon  which  all  else  chiefly  depends,  is  as  well  known 
to  the  public  as  to  myself,  and  it  is,  I  trust,  reasonably  satis- 
factory and  encouraging  to  all.  With  high  hope  for  the 
future,  no  prediction  in  regard  to  it  is  ventured? 

Dn'  the  occasion  corresponding    to    this,  four    years    ago, 

all  thoughts  were  anxiously  directed  to  an  impending  civil 

war.     All  dreaded  it,  all  sought  to  avoid  it..    While  the  inau- 

>^gural  address  was  being  delivered  from  this  place,  devoted 

altogether  to  saving  the  Union  without  war^  insurgent  agents 

7  were  in  the  city,  seeking  to  destroy  it  with  war-^seeking  to 
dissolve   the   Union,   and  divide   the  effects  ofnegotiation. 

\^^  Both  parties  depirebated  war,  butf  one  of  th^m  would  make 

.  .war  rather  than  let  the  nation  survive,  and  the  other  would 

^-  accept  war  rather  than  let  it  perish  ;  and  the  war  came.  One' 
eighth  of  the  whole  population  were  coloured  slaves,  not  dis- 
tributed generally  over  the  Union,  but  localised  in  the  southern 
part  of  it.  These  slaves  constituted  a  peculiar  and  powerful 
interest.     All  knew  that  this  interest  was  somehow  the  cause 

">  of  the  war.  To  strengthen,  perpetuate  and  extend  this  interest 
was  the  object  for  which  the  insurgents  would  rend  the  Union 

^     by  war,  1  while  the  Government  claimed  no  right  to  do  more 

^  than  restrict  the  territorial  enlargement  of  it. 
""  Neither  party  expected  for  the  war  the  magnitude  or  the  dura- 
tion which  it  has  already  attained.  Neither  anticipated  that  the 
cause  of  the  conflict  might  cease  with  or  even  before  the 
conflict  itself  should  cease.  Each  looked  for  an  easier  triumph, 
and  a  result  less  fundamental  and  astounding. 


LINCOLN  337 

Both  read  the  same  Bible,  and  pray  to  the  same  God,  and 
each  invokes  His  aid  against  the  other.  It  may  seem  strange 
that  any  men  should  dare  to  ask  a  just  God's  assistance  in 
wringing  their  bread  from  the  sweat  of  other  men's  faces. 

But  let  us  judge  not,  that  we  be  not  judged.     The  prayer  of , 

both  could  not  be  answered.  That  of  neither  has  been  answereH 
fully.  The  Almighty  has  His  own  purposes.  "  Woe  unto  the 
world  because  of  offences  ;  for  it  must  needs  be  that  offences 
come,  but  woe  to  that  man  by  whom  the  offence  cometh  !  " 
If  we  shall  suppose  that  American  slavery  is  one  of  these 
offences  which  in  the  providence  of  Go3rnust  needs  come, 
but  which,  having  continued  through  His  appointed  time.  He 
now  wills  to  remove,  and  that  He  gives  to  both  North  and 
South  this  terrible  war  as  the  woe  due  to  those  by  whom 
the  offence  came,  shall  we  discern  there  any  departure  from 
those  divine  attributes  which  the  believers  in  a  living  God 
always  ascribe  to  Him  ? rr^ESI^^aig^wc'tepe,^!!^^^^ 
pray,  that  this  mighty  scourge  of  war  may  speedily  pass  away.  / 
Yet  if  God  wills  that  it  continue  until  all  the  wealth  piled  by  the 
bondsman's  two  hundred  and  fifty  years  of  unrequited  toil 
shall  be  sunk,  and  until  every  drop  of  blood  drawn  witTi  the 
lash  shall  be  paid  by  another  drawn  by  the  sword,  then,  as 
was  said  three  thousand  years  ago,  so  still  it  must  be  said, 
that  "  the  judgments  of  the  Lord  are  true  and  righteous 
altogether." 

With  malice  towards  none,  with  charity  for  aU,  with  firm- 
ness in  the  right  as  God  gives  us  to  see  the  right,  let  us  finish 
the  work  we  are  in,  to  bind  up  the  nation's  wounds,  to  care  for 
him  who  shall  have  borne  the  battle,  and  for  his  widow  and 
his  orphans,  to  do  all  which  may  achieve  and  cherish  a  just 
and  a  lasting  peace  among  ourselves  and  with  all  nations. 


22 — (2170) 


BENJAMIN    DISRAELt 

It  is  well  known  that  Disraeli's  first  speech  in  the  House  of 
Commons  was  a  complete  failure,  and  that  he  had  to  make  his 
way  against  every  sort  of  prejudice.  His  powers  of  wit 
and  sarcasm  always  gave  liveliness  and  point  to  his  attacks. 
He  studied  the  art  of  amusing  the  House  until  he  became 
the  most  accomplished  master  of  ironic  satire  within  its  walls. 
Perhaps  no  English  statesman  has  so  entirely  succeeded  in 
overcoming  so  formidable  an  array  of  hostile  prepossessions. 
He  regarded  political  subjects  from  a  point  of  view  peculiarly 
his  own,  and  he  was  therefore  able  to  discuss  them  with  a 
mental  detachment  quite  unlike  the  ordinary  standard  of 
Parliament.  He  infused  into  the  topics  of  every  day  an 
agreeable  flavour  of  cynicism  and  paradox  which  recommend:ed 
his  opinions  to  some  who  would  not  have  been  otherwise 
attracted  by  them.  Many  of  his  doctrines  or  conclusions 
were  rather  suggested  than  propounded.  He  had  the  faculty 
of  bringing  the  subject  round  to  his  side  by  a  devious  path 
which  conducted  his  hearers  where  he  wished  to  take  them 
without  letting  them  see  where  they  were  being  taken.  In 
this  way  he  often  achieved  his  object  by  methods  which  could 
not  have  stood  the  test  of  strictly  logical  analysis.  His  own 
principles  could  hardly  be  expressed  in  terms  of  British  politics. 
They  had  a  different  origin,  and  a  different  history,  from  those 
of  his  rivals  and  contemporaries.  He  had  a  profound  behef 
in  race,  and  not  much  belief  in  anything  else.  But  he  was 
able  to  put  his  case  with  such  ingenuity  and  artifice  that 
mere  argument  could  not  dispose  of  it.  The  eminent  states- 
men whom  he  confronted  did  not  attempt  to  encounter  him 
with  his  own  weapons.  They  were  in  earnest.  They  allowed 
him  to  amuse  himself  and  the  House  of  Commons  at  their 
expense,   forgetting  that  he  was  all  the  time  building  up  a 

338 


DISRAELI  339 

reputation  with  the  pubhc  for  mysterious  sources  of  insight 
and  knowledge  which  could  be  used  when  the  opportunity 
came.  His  style  of  speaking  was  peculiar  to  himself.  He 
dexterously  avoided  commonplaces,  and  so  arranged  the 
distribution  of  his  subject  that  each  point  introduced  some 
fresh  phrase  or  idea.  No  man  revelled  more  in  the  unexpected. 
It  was  his  policy  to  approach  his  position  from  an  unusual 
quarter,  and  to  argue  his  own  conclusion  from  the  premises 
of  others. 

Disraeli,  as  an  orator,  had  the  art  of  retaining  the  attention 
of  his  audience  without  ever  fatiguing  it.  He  contrived  to 
have  the  air  of  one  on  his  way  to  the  disclosure  of  a  secret, 
and  he  seldom  wholly  disappointed  expectation.  He  would 
drop  in  an  apparently  careless  way  some  epigram  or  paradox 
which  set  people  thinking,  and  kept  them  on  the  watch  for 
what  he  would  say  next.  His  artful  simphcity,  his  apparently 
uuovjiiscious  knack  of  coining  memorable  catchwords,  made 
him  a  formidable  antagonist  in  debate,  because  it  found  him 
always  ready  with  a  verbal  retort  which  suggested  more  than 
it  said.  It  was  not  mere  skill  in  words  that  raised  him  to  such 
a  high  rhetorical  level.  It  was  a  combination  of  verbal  dex- 
terity with  a  power  of  analysing  and  employing  the  mental 
characteristics  to  which  he  appealed.  He  began  by  compelling 
attention,  and  it  was  not  until  he  had  carefully  prepared  the 
ground  that  he  applied  the  instrument  of  his  calculated  irony. 
It  was  in  this  way  that  he  cut  himself  adrift  from  the  mere 
tactics  of  party,  and  at  the  same  time  made  himself  indis- 
pensable as  the  supreme  master  of  Parliamentary  manoeuvre. 
His  speeches  are  a  model  of  ingenuity  rather  than  eloquence, 
of  subtlety  rather  than  power,  of  the  persuasive  rather  than  the 
didactic  element,  of  the  delicacy  which  never  seems  to  obtrude 
a  formula,  and  yet  never  fails  to  suggest  an  inference.  There 
have  been  few  such  accomplished  wielders  of  irony  or  sarcasm, 
and  yet  it  would  be  difficult  to  find  in  all  his  speeches  an 
instance  of  strictly  logical  demonstration. 


340  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

Berlin  Treaty 

House  of  Lords,  July  18th,  1878 

My  Lords  Jin  laying  on  the  table  of  your  lordships'  House,  as 
I  am  about  to  do,  tji£  protocols  of  the  Cgngre^  of  Berlii^  I 
have  thought  I  should  only  be  doing  my  duty  to  your  lordships' 
House,  to  Parliament  generally,  and  to  the  country,  if  I  made 
some  remarks  on  the  policy  which  was  su]>p2rted  by  the 
representatives  of  Her  Majesty  at  the  Congress,  aii3  whiclTis 
embodied  in  the  treaty  of  Berlin  and  in  the  convention  which 
was  placed  on  your  lordships'  table  during  rny  absence. 
^  My  lords,  you  are  aware  that  thedreaTy  of  San  Stefano)was 
looked  on  with  much  distrust  and  alarm  by  her  Majesty's 
Government — that  they  believed  it  was  calculated  to  bring 
about  a  state  of  affairs  dangerous  to  European  independence 
and  injurious  to  the  interests  of  the  British  Empire.  Our 
impeachment  of  that  policy  is  before  your  lordships  and  the 
country,  and  is  contained  in  the  circular  of  my  noble  friend  the 
Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs  in  April  last.  [jOpr  pre- 
s_ent  contention  is,  that  we  can  show  that,  by  the  changgs^a?rd  - 

roiidifications.  which  have,  been made  in  the  treaty  of  San 

Stefano  by  the  Congress  of  Berlin  and  the  Convention  jif ^ 
Constantinople,  .^he  menace  to  European  independence  has 
been  removed,  and  the  threatened  iniury  to  the  British  Empire 
has  been  averted.  Your  lordships  will  recollect  that  by  the 
treaty  of  San  Stefano  about  one  half  ofvjurkey  in  Europe)was 
formed  into  a  State  called  Bulgaria — a  State  consisting  of 
upwards  of  50,000  geographical  square  miles,  and  containing 
a  population  of  4,000,000,  with  harbours  on  either  sea — both 
on  the  shores  of  the  Euxine  and  of  the  Archipelago.  That  dis- 
position of  territory  severed  Constantinople  and  the  limited 
district  which  was  still  spared  to  the  possessors  of  that  city — 
severed  it  from  the  provinces  of  Macedonia  and  Thrace  by  Bul- 
garia descending  to  the  very  shores  of  ^Egean  ;  (and,  altogether, 
a  State  was  formed,  which,  both  from  its  natural  resources 
and  its  peculiarly  favourable  geographical  position,  must  neces- 
sarily have  exercised  a  predominant  influence  over  the  political 
and  commercial  interests  of  that  part  of  the  worldL^  The 
remaining  portion  of  Turkey  in  Europe  was  reduced  also  to  a 
considerable  degree  by  affording  what  was  called  compensation 
to  previous  rebellious  tributary  principalities,  which  have  now 


DISRAELI  341 

become  independent  States /so  that  the  general  result  of  the 

treaty  of  San  SfpfgnA  wag    that  while  ^t  sparer!  thp  anthnpty 

of  the  Sultan  so  far  as  his  capital  anri  \i9>  imn-iediatp,  virinitv.    _^ 

it  reducecLhim  to  a  estate  of  ci^ibj action  to  the  Great  Power  which_   K<^^^ 

had  defeated  his  armies    and  which  was  present  at  the  gates 

of  his  capital.     Accordingly,  though  it  might  be  said  that  he 

still  seemed  to  be  invested  with  one  of  the  highest  functions 

of  pubhc  duty — the  protection  and  custody  of  the  Straits — it 

was  apparent   that   his  authority  in  that   respect   could  be 

exercised  by  him  in  deference  only  to  the  superior  Power  which 

had  vanquished  him,  and  to  whom  the  proposed  arrangements 

would  have  kept  him  in  subjection. 

My  lords,  in  these  matters  the  Congre^ss  of  Rerhn  have  made 
great  changes.  They  have  restored  to  the  Sultgn  tw<^-third,s 
of  the  territory  which  was  to  have  formed  the  great  Bulgarian 
Slai£,_  They  have  restored  to  him  upwards  of  30,000  geogra- 
phical square  miles,  and  2,500,000  of  population — that  territory 
being  the  richest  in  the  "Ballcaiis^  where  most  of  the  land  is 
rich,  and  the  population  one  of  the  wealthiest,  most  ingenious, 
and  most  loyal  of  his  subjects.  The  frontiers  of  his  State 
have  been  pushed  forward  from  the  mere  environs  of  Salonica 
and  Adrianople  to  the  hues  of  the  Balkans  and  Trajan's  pass  ; 
the  new  principality,  which  was  to  exercise  such  an  influence, 
and  produce  a  revolution  in  the  disposition  of  the  territory  and 
poUcy  of  that  part  of  the  globe,  is  now  merely  a  State  in  the 
valley  of  the  Danube,  and  both  in  its  extent  and  its  population 
is  reduced  to  one-third  of  what  was  contemplated  by  the  treaty 
of  San  Stefano.  My  lords,  it  has  been  said  that  while  the  Con-  ^  ]f\^ 
gress  of  Berlin  decided  upon  a  pohcy  so  bold  as  that  of  declaring 
the  range  of  the  Balkans  as  the  frontier  of  what  may  now  be 
called  .,New  Turkey,  they  have,  in  fact,  furnished  it  with  a 
frontier  which,  instead  of  being  impregnable,  is  in  some  parts  • 
undefended,  and  is  altogether  one  of  an  inadequate  character,  y 

My  lords,  it  is  very  difficult  to  decide,  so  far  as  nature  is 
concerned,  whether  any  combination  of  circumstances  can 
ever  be  brought  about  which  would  furnish  what  is  called  an 
impregnable  frontier.  Whether  it  be  river,  desert,  or  moun- 
tainous range,  it  will  be  found,  in  the  long  run,  that  the  impreg- 
nability of  a  frontier  must  be  supplied  by  the  vital  spirit  of 
man  ;  and  that  it  is  by  the  courage,  discipline,  patriotism  and 
devotion  of  a  population  that  impregnable  frontiers  can  alone 


342  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

be  formed.  And,  my  lords,  when  I  remember  what  race  of 
men  it  was  that  created  and  defended  Plevna,  I  must  confess 
my  confidence  that,  if  the  cause  be  a  good  one,  they  will  not 
easily  find  that  the  frontier  of  the  Balkans  is  indefensible. 
But  it  is  said  that  although  the  Congress  has  furnished — and  it 
pretended  to  furnish  nothing  more — a  competent  military 
frontier  to  Turkey,  the  disposition  was  so  ill-managed,  that,  at 
the  same  time,  it  failed  to  secure  an  effective  barrier — that  in 
devising  the  frontier,  it  so  arranged  matters  that  this  very  line 
of  the  Balkans  may  be  turned.  The  Congress  has  been  charged 
with  having  committed  one  of  the  greatest  blunders  that  coins' 
possibly  have  been  accomplished  by  leaving  ?ofia  in  tHe  jpos-" 
session  of  a  Power  really  independent  of  Turke^TanTonFwTiich, 
in  the  course  of  time,  might  become  hostile  to  Turkey^  My 
lords,  this  is,  in  my  opinion,  an  error  on  the  part  of  those  who 
furnish  information  of  an  authentic  character  to  the  different 
populations  of  Europe,  who  naturally  desire  to  have  correct 
information  on  such  matters. 

It  is  said  that  the  position  of  Sofia  is  of  a  commanding  char- 
^ter,  and  that  of  its  value  the  Congress  were  not  aware,  and  tliat 
it_was  yielded  to  an  irnperious  demand  on  the  part  of  one  ot 
the  Powers  represented  at  the  Congress.  My  lords,  I  can  assure 
your  lordships  that  there  is  not  a  shadow  of  truth  in  the  state- 
ment. I  shall  show  that  when  the  Congress  resolved  to  estab- 
lish the  line  of  the  Balkans  as  the  frontier  of  Turkey,  they  felt 
that  there  would  have  been  no  difficulty,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
in  Turkey  retaining  possession  of  Sofia.  What  happened  was 
this.  The  highest  military  authority  of  the  Turks — so  I  think 
I  may  describe  him — was  one  of  the  plenipotentiaries  at  the 
Congress  of  the  Porte — I  allude  to  Mahomet  Ali  Pasha.  Well, 
the  moment  the  line  of  the  Balkans  was  spoken  of,  he  brought 
under  the  notice  of  his  colleagues  at  the  Conference — and 
especially,  I  may  say,  of  the  plenipotentiaries  of  England — 
his  views  on  the  subject,  and,  speaking  as  he  did  not  only  with 
military  authority,  but  also  with  consummate  acquaintance 
with  all  those  locahties,  he  said  nothing  could  be  more  erroneous 
than  the  idea  that  Sofia  was  a  strong  strategic  position,  and 
that^those  who  possessed  it  would  immediately  turn  the 
Balkans  and  march  on  Constantinople.  He  said  that  as  a 
strategical  position  it  was  worthless,  but  that  there  was  a 
position  in  the  Sandjak  of  Sofia  which,  if  properly  defended. 


DISRAELI       .,  343 

# 

might  be  regarded  as  impregnable,  and  that  was  the  pass  of 
Ichtiman.  He  thought  it  of  vital  importance  to  the  Sultan 
that  that  position  should  be  secured  to  Turkey,  as  then  his 
Majesty  would  have  an  efficient  defence  to  his  capital. 

That  position  was  secured.  It  is  a  pass  which,  if  properly 
defended,  will  prevent  any  host,  however  powerful,  from 
taking  Constantinople  by  turning  the  Balkans.  But,  in  conse- 
quence of  that  arrangement,  it  became  the  duty  of  the  plenipo- 
tentiaries to  see  what  would  be  the  best  arrangement  in  regard 
of  Sofia  and  its  immediate  districts.  The  population  of  Sofia 
and  its  district  are,  I  believe,  without  exception,  Bulgarian, 
and  it  was  thought  wise,  they  being  Bulgarians,  that  if  possible 
it  should  be  included  in  Bulgaria.  That  was  accomplished 
by  exchanging  it  for  a  district  in  which  the  population,  if  not 
exclusively,  are  numerically  Mahometan,  and  which,  so  far 
as  the  fertility  of  the  land  is  concerned,  is  an  exchange  highly  to 
the  advantage  of  the  Porte.  That,  my  lords,  is  a  short  account 
of  an  arrangement  which  I  know  has  for  a  month  past  given  rise 
in  Europe,  and  especially  in  this  country,  to  a  belief  that  it  was 
in  deference  to  Russia  that  Sofia  was  not  retained,  and  that 
by  its  not  having  been  retained  Turkey  had  lost  the  means  of 
defending  herself,  in  the  event  of  her  being  again  plunged  into 
war. 

My  lords,  it  has  also  been  said,  with  regard  to  the  line  of  the 
Balkans,  that  it  was  not  merely  in  respect  of  the  possession 
of  Sofia  that  an  error  was  committed,  but  that  the  Congress 
made  a  great  mistake  in  not  retaining  Varna.  My  lords,  I 
know  that  there  are  in  this  assembly  many  members  who  have 
recollections — glorious  recollections — of  that  locality.  They 
will  know  at  once  that  if  the  line  of  the  Balkans  were  estab- 
lished as  the  frontier,  it  would  be  impossible  to  include  Varna, 
which  is  to  the  north  of  the  Balkans.  Varna  itself  is  not  a 
place  of  importance,  and  only  became  so  in  connection  with  a 
system  of  fortifications,  which  are  now  to  be  rased.  No  doubt, 
in  connection  with  a  line  of  strongholds,  Varna  formed  a  part 
of  a  system  of  defence  ;  but  of  itself  Varna  is  not  a  place  of 
importance.  Of  itself,  it  is  only  a  roadstead,  and  those  who 
dwell  upon  the  importance  of  Varna,  and  consider  that  it  was 
a  great  error  on  the  part  of  the  Congress  not  to  have  secured 
it  for  Turkey,  quite  forget  that  between  the  Bosphorus  and 
Varna,  upon  the  coast  of  the  Black  Sea,  the  Congress  has 


344  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

allotted  to  Turkey  a  much  more  important  point  on  the  Black 
Sea — the  harbour  of  Burgos.  My  lords,  I  think  I  have  shown 
that  the  charges  made  against  the  Congress  on  these  three 
grounds — the  frontiers  of  the  Balkans,  the  non-retention  of 
Sofia,  and  the  giving  up  of  Varna — have  no  foundation 
whatever. 

Well,  my  lords,  having  established  the  Balkans  as  the  frontier 
of  Turkey  in  Europe,  the  Congress  resolved  that  south  of  the 
Balkans,  to  a  certain  extent,  the  country  should  be  formed 
into  a  province,  to  which  should  be  given  the  name  of  Eastern 
Roumelia.  At  one  time  it  was  proposed  by  some  to  call  it 
South  Bulgaria  ;  but  it  was  manifest  that  with  such  a  name 
between  it  and  North  Bulgaria  there  would  be  constant  intri- 
guing to  bring  about  a  union  between  the  two  provinces.  We 
therefore  thought  that  the  province  of  East  Roumeha  should 
be  formed,  and  that  there  should  be  established  in  it  a  govern- 
ment somewhat  different  from  that  of  contiguous  provinces 
where  the  authority  of  the  Sultan  might  be  more  unlimited. 
I  am  not  myself  of  opinion  that,  as  a  general  rule,  it  is  wise 
to  interfere  with  a  military  Power  which  you  acknowledge  ; 
but  though  it  might  have  been  erroneous  as  a  political  principle 
to  limit  the  military  authority  of  the  Sultan,  yet  there  are  in 
this  world  other  things  besides  political  principles  ;  there  are 
such  things  as  historical  facts  ;  and  he  would  not  be  a  prudent 
statesman  who  did  not  take  into  consideration  historical  facts 
as  well  as  political  principles.  The  province  which  we  have 
formed  into  Eastern  Roumelia  had  been  the  scene  of  many 
excesses,  by  parties  on  both  sides,  to  which  human  nature 
looks  with  deep  regret ;  and  it  was  thought  advisable,  in  making 
these  arrangements  for  the  peace  of  Europe,  that  we  should 
take  steps  to  prevent  the  probable  recurrence  of  such  events. 
Yet  to  do  this  and  not  give  the  Sultan  a  direct  military  authority 
in  the  province  would  have  been,  in  our  opinion,  a  grievous 
error.  We  have  therefore  decided  that  the  Sultan  should 
have  the  power  to  defend  the  barrier  of  the  Balkans  with  all 
his  available  force.  He  has  power  to  defend  his  frontiers  by 
land  and  by  sea,  both  by  the  passes  of  the  mountains  and  the 
ports  and  strongholds  of  the  Black  Sea.  No  limit  has  been 
placed  on  the  amount  of  force  he  may  bring  to  bear  with  that 
object.  No  one  can  dictate  to  him  what  the  amount  of  that 
force  shall  be  ;    but,  in  respect  to  the  interior  and  internal 


DISRAELI  345 

government  of  the  province,  we  thought  the  time  had  arrived 
when  we  should  endeavour  to  carry  into  effect  some  of  those 
important  proposals  intended  for  the  better  administration 
of  the  States  of  the  Sultan,  which  were  discussed  and  projected 
at  the  Conference  of  Constantinople. 

My  lords,  I  will  not  enter  into  any  minute  details  on  these 
questions  ;  they  might  weary  you  at  this  moment,  and  I  have 
several  other  matters  on  which  I  must  yet  touch  ;  but,  generally 
speaking,  I  imagine  there  are  three  great  points  which  we  shall 
have  before  us  in  any  attempt  to  prove  the  administration  of 
Turkish  dominion.  First  of  aU — it  is  most  important,  and 
we  have  so  established  it  in  Eastern  Roumelia — that  the  office 
of  Governor  shall  be  for  a  specific  period,  and  that,  as  in  India, 
it  should  not  be  for  less  than  five  years.  If  that  system 
generally  obtained  in  the  dominions  of  the  Sultan,  I  believe 
it  would  be  of  incalculable  benefit.  Secondly,  we  thought  it 
desirable  that  there  should  be  instituted  public  assemblies, 
in  which  the  popular  element  should  be  adequately  represented, 
and  that  the  business  of  those  assemblies  should  be  to  levy 
and  administer  the  local  finances  of  the  province.  And 
thirdly,  we  thought  it  equally  important  that  order  should  be 
maintained  in  this  province,  either  by  a  gendarmerie  of  adequate 
force  or  by  a  local  militia,  in  both  cases  the  officers  holding 
their  commission  from  the  Sultan.  But  the  whole  subject  of 
the  administration  of  Eastern  Roumelia  has  been  referred  to 
an  Imperial  Commission  at  Constantinople,  and  this  commission 
after  making  its  investigations,  wiU  submit  recommendations 
to  the  Sultan,  who  will  issue  firmans  to  carry  those  recom- 
mendations into  effect.  I  may  mention  here,  as  it  may  save 
time,  that  in  aU  the  arrangements  which  have  been  made  to 
improve  the  condition  of  the  subject-races  of  Turkey  in  Europe, 
inquiry  by  local  commissions  where  investigation  may  be 
necessary  is  contemplated.  Those  commissions  are  to  report 
their  results  to  the  chief  commission  ;  and,  after  the  firman 
of  the  Sultan  has  been  issued,  the  changes  will  take  place.  It 
is  supposed  that  in  the  course  of  three  months  from  the  time 
of  the  ratification  of  the  treaty  of  Berlin  the  principal 
arrangements  may  be  effected. 

My  lords,  I  may  now  state  what  has  been  effected  by  the 
Congress  in  respect  of  Bosnia — that  being  a  point  on  which, 
I  think,  considerable  error  prevails.     One  of  the  most  difficult 


m  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

matters  we  had  to  encounter  in  attempting  what  was  the  object 
of  the  Congress  of  Berhn — namely,  to  re-estabhsh  the  Sultan 
as  a  real  and  substantial  authority — was  the  condition  of  some 
of  his  distant  provinces,  and  especially  of  Bosnia.  The  state 
of  Bosnia,  and  of  those  provinces  and  principalities  contiguous 
to  it,  was  one  of  chronic  anarchy.  There  is  no  language 
which  can  describe  adequately  the  condition  of  that  large 
portion  of  the  Balkan  peninsula  occupied  by  Roumania, 
Servia,  Bosnia,  Herzegovina,  and  other  provinces.  Pohtical 
intrigues,  constant  rivalries,  a  total  absence  of  all  public 
spirit,  and  of  the  pursuit  of  objects  which  patriotic  minds 
would  wish  to  accomplish,  the  hatred  of  races,  the  animosities 
of  rival  religions,  and,  above  all,  the  absence  of  any  controlling 
power  that  could  keep  these  large  districts  in  anything  like 
order  :  such  were  the  sad  truths,  which  no  one  who  has  investi- 
gated the  subject  could  resist  for  a  moment.  Hitherto,  at 
least  until  within  the  last  two  years,  Turkey  had  some  sem- 
blance of  authority  which,  though  it  was  rarely  adequate,  and 
when  adequate,  was  unwisely  exercised,  still  was  an  authority 
to  which  the  injured  could  appeal,  and  which  sometimes 
might  control  violence.  But  the  Turkey  of  the  present  time 
was  in  no  condition  to  exercise  that  authority.  I  inquired 
into  the  matter  of  those  most  competent  to  give  an  opinion, 
and  the  result  of  my  investigation  was  a  conviction  that  nothing 
short  of  an  army  of  50,000  men  of  the  best  troops  of  Turkey 
would  produce  anything  like  order  in  those  parts,  and  that, 
were  the  attempt  to  be  made,  it  would  be  contested  and 
resisted,  and  might  finally  be  defeated. 

But  what  was  to  be  said  at  a  time  when  all  the  statesmen 
of  Europe  were  attempting  to  concentrate  and  condense  the 
resources  of  the  Porte  with  the  view  of  strengthening  them — 
what  would  have  been  the  position  of  the  Porte  if  it  had  to 
commence  its  new  career — a  career,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  of  ame- 
lioration and  tranquillity — by  despatching  a  large  army  to 
Bosnia  to  deal  with  those  elements  of  difficulty  and  danger  ? 
It  is  quite  clear,  my  lords,  that  such  an  effort  at  this  moment 
by  Turkey  might  bring  about  its  absolute  ruin.  Then  what 
was  to  be  done  ?  There  have  been  before,  in  the  history  of 
diplomacy,  not  unfrequent  instances  in  which,  even  in  civilized 
parts  of  the  globe.  States  having  fallen  into  decrepitude,  have 
afforded  no  assistance  to  keep  order  and  tranquillity,  and  have 


DISRAELI  34'? 

become,  as  these  districts  have  become,  a  source  of  danger 
to  their  neighbours.  Under  such  circumstances,  the  Powers 
of  Europe  have  generally  looked  to  see  whether  there  was 
any  neighbouring  Power  of  a  character  entirely  different 
from  those  disturbed  and  desolated  regions,  but  deeply  inter- 
ested in  their  welfare  and  prosperity,  who  would  undertake 
the  task  of  attempting  to  restore  their  tranquillity  and 
prosperity.  / 

In  the  present  case  you  will  see  that  the  position  of  Austria 
is  one  that  clearly  indicates  her  as  fitted  to  undertake  such 
an  office.  It  is  not  the  first  time  that  Austria  has  occupied 
provinces  at  the  request  of  Europe  to  ensure  that  order  and 
tranquillity,  which  are  European  interests,  might  prevail  in 
them.  Not  once,  twice,  or  thrice  has  Austria  undertaken  such 
an  office.  There  may  be  differences  of  opinion  as  to  the  poUcy 
on  which  Austria  has  acted,  or  as  to  the  principles  of  govern- 
ment which  she  has  maintained  ;  but  that  has  nothing  to  do 
with  the  fact  that,  under  circumstances  similar  to  those  I 
have  described  as  existing  in  Bosnia  and  the  provinces  contigu- 
ous to  it,  Austria^ has  been  invited  and  has  interfered  in  the 
manner- 1  have  descnbed^^and  has  brought  about  order  and 
tranquillity.  Austria  in  the  present  case  was  deeply  interested 
that  some  arrangement  should  be  made.  Austria,  for  now 
nearly  three  years,  has  had  upwards  of  15,000  refugees  from 
Bosnia,  which  have  been  supported  by  her  resources,  and 
whose  demands  notoriously  have  been  of  a  vexatious  and 
exhausting  character.  It  was  therefore  thought  expedient  by 
the  Congress  that  Austria  should  be  invited  to  occupy  Bosnia, 
and  not  to  leave  it  until  she  had  deeply  laid  the -foundations 
of  tranquillity  and  order.  My  lords,  I  am  the  last  man  who 
would  wish,  when  objections  are  made  to  our  proceedings,  to 
veil  them  under  the  decision  of  the  Congress ;  it  was  a  decision 
which  the  plenipotentiaries  of  England  highly  approved.  It, 
was  a  proposal  which,  as  your  lordships  will  see  when  you  refer 
to  the  protocols  which  I  shall  lay  on  the  table,  was  made  by 
my  noble  friend  the  Secretary  of  State,  that  Austria  should 
accept  this  trust  and  fulfil  this  duty  ;  and  I  earnestly  supported 
him  on  that  occasion. 

My  lords,  in  consequence  of  that  arrangement  cries  have  been 
raised  against  our  "  partition  of  Turkey."  My  lords,  our 
object  has  been  directly  the  reverse,  our  object  has  been  to 


348  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

prevent  partition.  The  question  of  partition  is  one  upon 
which,  it  appears  to  me,  very  erroneous  ideas  are  in  circulation. 
Some  two  years  ago — before,  I  think,  the  war  had  commenced, 
but  when  the  disquietude  and  dangers  of  the  situation  were 
very  generally  felt — there  was  a  school  of  statesmen  who  were 
highly  in  favour  of  what  they  believed  to  be  the  only  remedy, 
what  they  called  the  partition  of  Turkey.  Those  who  did  not 
agree  with  them  were  those  who  thought  we  should,  on  the 
whole,  attempt  the  restoration  of  Turkey.  Her  Majesty's 
Government  at  all  times  have  resisted  the  partition  of  Turkey. 
They  have  done  so  because,  exclusive  of  the  high  moral  con- 
siderations that  are  mixed  up  with  the  subject,  they  believed 
an  attempt,  on  a  great  scale,  to  accomplish  the  partition  of 
Turkey,  would  inevitably  lead  to  a  long,  a  sanguinary,  and  often 
recurring  struggle,  and  that  Europe  and  Asia  would  both  be 
involved  in  a  series  of  troubles  and  sources  of  disaster  and 
danger  of  which  no  adequate  idea  could  be  formed. 

These  professors  of  partition — quite  secure,  no  doubt,  in  their 
own  views — have  freely  spoken  to  us  on  this  subject.  We 
have  been  taken  up  to  a  high  mountain  and  shown  all  the 
Kingdoms  of  the  earth,  and  they  have  said,  "  All  these  shall 
be  yours  if  you  will  worship  Partition."  But  we  have  declined 
to  do  so  for  the  reasons  I  have  shortly  given.  And  it  is  a 
remarkable  circumstance  that  after  the  great  war,  and  after 
the  prolonged  diplomatic  negotiations,  which  lasted  during 
nearly  a  period  of  three  years,  on  this  matter,  the  whole  Powers 
of  Europe,  including  Russia,  have  strictly,  and  as  completely 
as  ever,  come  to  the  unanimous  conclusion  that  the  best  chance 
for  the  tranquillity  and  order  of  the  world  is  to  retain  the 
Sultan  as  part  of  the  acknowledged  political  system  of  Europe. 
My  lords,  unquestionably  after  a  great  war — and  I  call  the 
late  war  a  great  war,  because  the  greatness  of  a  war  now  must 
not  be  calculated  by  its  duration,  but  by  the  amount  of  the 
forces  brought  into  the  field,  and  where  a  million  of  men  have 
struggled  for  supremacy,  as  has  been  the  case  recently,  I  call 
that  a  great  war — but,  I  say,  after  a  great  war  like  this,  itis^ 
utterly  impossible  that  you  can  have  a  settlement  of  any 
permanent  character  without  a  redistribution  of  territory  and 
considerable  changes.  But  that  is  not  partition.  My  lords, 
a  country  may  have  lost  provinces,  but  that  is  not  partition. 
We  know  that  not  very  long  ago  a  great  country — one  of  the 


DISRAELI  349 

foremost  countries  of  the  worid — ^lost  provinces  ;  yet  is  not 
France  one  of  the  great  Powers  of  the  world,  and  with  a  future 
— a  commanding  future  ? 

Austria  herself  has  lost  provinces — more  provinces  than 
Turkey,  perhaps  ;  even  England  has  lost  provinces — the  most 
precious  possessions — the  loss  of  which  every  EngHshman 
must  deplore  to  this  moment.  We  lost  them  from  bad  govern- 
ment. Had  the  principles  which  now  obtain  between  the 
metropoHs  and  her  dependencies  prevailed  then,  we  should 
not,  perhaps,  have  lost  those  provinces,  and  the  power  of  this 
Empire  would  have  been  proportionally  increased.  It  is 
perfectly  true  that  the  Sultan  of  Turkey  has  lost  provinces  ; 
it  is  true  that  his  armies  have  been  defeated ;  it  is  true  that 
his  enemy  is  even  now  at  his  gates  ;  but  all  that  has  happened 
to  other  Powers.  But  a  sovereign  who  has  not  yet  forfeited 
his  capital,  whose  capital  has  not  yet  been  occupied  by  his 
enemy — and  that  capital  one  of  the  strongest  in  the  world — 
who  has  armies  and  fleets  at  his  disposal,  and  who  still  rules 
over  20,000,000  of  inhabitants,  cannot  be  described  as  a  Power 
whose  dominions  have  been  partitioned.  My  lords,  it  has  been 
said  that  no  Umit  has  been  fixed  to  the  occupation  of  Bosnia 
by  Austria.  Well,  I  think  that  was  a  very  wise  step.  The 
moment  you  limit  an  occupation  you  deprive  it  of  half  its 
virtue.  All  those  opposed  to  the  principles  which  occupation 
was  devised  to  foster  and  strengthen,  feel  that  they  have  only 
to  hold  their  breath  and  wait  a  certain  time,  and  the  oppor- 
tunity for  their  interference  would  again  present  itself.  There- 
fore, I  cannot  agree  with  the  objection  which  is  made  to  the 
arrangement  with  regard  to  the  occupation  of  Bosnia  by 
Austria  on  the  question  of  its  duration. 

My  lords,  there  is  a  point  on  which  I  feel  it  now  my  duty 
to  trouble  your  lordships,  and  that  is  the  question  of  Greece. 
A  severe  charge  has  been  made  against  the  Congress,  and 
particularly  against  the  English  plenipotentiaries,  for  not  having 
sufficiently  attended  to  the  interests  and  claims  of  Greece. 
My  lords,  I  think  you  will  find,  on  reflection,  that  that  charge 
is  utterly  unfounded.  The  English  Government  were  the  first 
that  expressed  the  desire  that  Greece  should  be  heard  at  the 
Congress.  But,  while  they  expressed  that  desire,  they  com- 
municated confidentially  to  Greece  that  it  must  on  no  account 
associate  that  desire  on  the  part  of  the  Government  with  any 


350  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

engagement  for  the  redistribution  ^lierritory.  That  was 
repeated,  and  not  merely  once  repeated.  The  Greek  inhabi- 
tants, apart  from  the  Kingdom  of  Greece,  are  a  considerable 
element  in  the  Turkish  Empire,  and  it  is  of  the  greatest  import- 
ance that  their  interests  should  be  sedulously  attended  to. 
One  of  the  many  evils  of  that  large  Slav  State — the  Bulgaria 
of  the  San  Stefano  treaty — was,  that  it  would  have  absorbed, 
and  made  utterly  to  disappear  from  the  earth,  a  considerable 
Greek  population.  At  the  Congress  the  Greeks  were  heard, 
and  they  were  heard  by  representatives  of  considerable  elo- 
quence and  ability  ;  but  it  was  quite  clear,  the  moment  they 
put  their  case  before  the  Congress,  that  they  had  totally  mis- 
apprehended the  reason  why  the  Congress  had  met  together, 
and  what  were  its  objects  and  character.  The  Greek  repre- 
sentatives, evidently,  had  not  in  any  way  relinquished  what 
they  call  their  great  idea — and  your  lordships  well  know  that 
it  is  one  which  has  no  limit  which  does  not  reach  as  far  as 
Constantinople.  But  they  did  mention  at  the  Congress,  as  a 
practical  people,  and  feeling  that  they  had  no  chance  of 
obtaining  at  that  moment  all  they  desired — that  they  were 
willing  to  accept  as  an  instalment  the  two  large  provinces  of 
Epirus  and  Thessaly,  and  the  island  of  Crete.  It  was  quite 
evident  to  the  Congress,  that  the  representatives  of  Greece 
utterly  misunderstood  the  objects  of  our  labours  ;  that  we  were 
not  there  to  partition  Turkey,  and  give  them  their  share  of 
Turkey,  but  for  a  very  contrary  purpose  :  as  far  as  we  could 
to  re-establish  the  dominion  of  the  Sultan  on  a  rational  basis, 
to  condense  and  concentrate  his  authority,  and  to  take  the 
opportunity — of  which  we  have  largely  availed  ourselves — 
of  improving  the  condition  of  his  subjects. 

I  trust,  therefore,  when  I  have  pointed  out  to  your  lordships 
this  cardinal  error  in  the  views  of  Greece,  that  your  lordships 
will  feel  that  the  charge  made  against  the  Congress  has  no 
substantial  foundation.  But  the  interests  of  Greece  were  not 
neglected,  and  least  of  all  by  Her  Majesty's  Government. 
Before  the  Congress  of  Berlin,  believing  that  there  was  an 
opportunity  of  which  considerable  advantage  might  be  made 
for  Greece  without  deviating  into  partition,  we  applied  to  the 
Porte  to  consider  the  long-vexed  question  of  the  boundaries 
of  the  two  States.  The  boundaries  of  Greece  have  always  been 
inadequate  and  inconvenient ;    they  are  so  formed  as  to  offer 


DISRAELI  351 

a  premium  to  brigandage — which  is  the  curse  of  both  countries, 
and  has  led  to  misunderstanding  and  violent  intercourse 
between  the  inhabitants  of  both.  Now,  when  some  redis- 
tribution— and  a  considerable  redistribution — of  territories 
was  about  to  take  place,  now,  we  thought,  was  the  opportunity 
for  Greece  to  urge  her  claim  ;  and  that  claim  we  were  ready  to 
support  ;  and  to  reconcile  the  Porte  to  viewing  it  in  a  large 
and  liberal  manner.  And  I  am  bound  to  say  that  the  manner 
in  which  our  overtures  were  received  by  the  Porte  was  encour- 
aging, and  more  than  encouraging.  For  a  long  period  Her 
Majesty's  Government  have  urged  upon  both  countries,  and 
especially  upon  Greece,  the  advantage  of  a  good  understanding 
between  them.  We  urged  that  it  was  only  by  union  between 
Turks  and  Greeks  that  any  reaction  could  be  obtained  against 
that  overpowering  Slav  interest  which  was  then  exercising 
such  power  in  the  Peninsula,  and  which  had  led  to  this  fatal 
and  disastrous  war.  More  than  this,  on  more  than  one  occasion 
— I  may  say,  on  many  occasions — we  have  been  the  means  of 
preventing  serious  misunderstanding  between  Turkey  and 
Greece,  and  on  every  occasion  we  have  received  from  both 
States  an  acknowledgment  of  our  good  offices. 

We  were,  therefore,  in  a  position  to  assist  Greece  in  this 
matter.  But,  of  course,  to  give  satisfaction  to  a  State  which 
coveted  Constantinople  for  its  capital,  and  which  talked  of 
accepting  large  provinces  and  a  powerful  island  as  only  an 
instalment  of  its  claims  for  the  moment,  was  difficult.  It  was 
difficult  to  get  the  views  of  that  Government  accepted  by 
Turkey,  however  inclined  it  might  be  to  consider  a  reconstruc- 
tion of  frontiers  on  a  large  and  liberal  scale.  My  noble  friend 
the  Secretary  of  State  did  use  all  his  influence,  and  the  result 
was  that,  in  my  opinion,  Greece  has  obtained  a  considerable 
accession  of  resources  and  strength.  But  we  did  not  find  on 
the  part  of  the  representatives  of  Greece  that  response  or  that 
sympathy  which  we  should  have  desired.  Their  minds  were 
in  another  quarter.  But  though  the  Congress  could  not  meet 
such  extravagant  and  inconsistent  views  as  those  urged  by 
Greece — views  which  were  not  in  any  way  within  the  scope  of 
the  Congress  or  the  area  of  its  duty — we  have  still,  as  will  be 
found  in  the  treaty,  or  certainly  in  the  protocol,  indicated 
what  we  beheve  to  be  a  rectification  of  frontier,  which  would 
add  considerably  to  the  strength  and  resources  of  Greece, 


352  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

Therefore,  I  think,  under  all  the  circumstances,  it  will  be 
acknowledged  that  Greece  has  not  been  neglected.  Greece  is 
a  country  so  interesting,  that  it  enlists  the  sympathies  of  all 
educated  men.  Greece  has  a  future,  and  I  would  say,  if  I 
might  be  permitted,  to  Greece,  what  I  would  say  to  an  individual 
who  has  a  future — *'  Learn  to  be  patient." 

Now,  my  lords,  I  have  touched  upon  most  of  the  points 
connected  with  Turkey  in  Europe.  My  summary  is  that  at 
this  moment — of  course,  no  longer  counting  Servia  or  Rou- 
mania,  once  tributary  principalities,  as  part  of  Turkey  ;  not 
counting  even  the  new  Bulgaria,  though  it  is  a  tributary 
principality,  as  part  of  Turkey  ;  and  that  I  may  not  be  taunted 
with  taking  an  element  which  I  am  hardly  entitled  to  place 
in  the  calculation,  omitting  even  Bosnia — European  Turkey 
still  remains  a  dominion  of  60,000  geographical  square  miles, 
with  a  population  of  6,000,000,  and  that  population  in  a  very 
great  degree  concentrated  and  condensed  in  the  provinces 
contiguous  to  the  capital.  My  lords,  it  was  said,  when  the  line 
of  the  Balkans  was  carried — and  it  was  not  carried  until  after 
long  and  agitating  discussions — it  was  said  by  that  illustrious 
statesman  who  presided  over  our  labours,  that  "  Turkey  in 
Europe  once  more  exists."  My  lords,  I  do  not  think  that,  so 
far  as  European  Turkey  is  concerned,  this  country  has  any 
right  to  complain  of  the  decisions  of  the  Congress,  or,  I  would 
hope,  of  the  labours  of  the  plenipotentiaries.  You  cannot  look 
at  the  map  of  Turkey  as  it  had  been  left  by  the  treaty  of  San 
Stefano,  and  as  it  has  been  rearranged  by  the  Treaty  of  BerUn, 
without  seeing  that  great  results  have  accrued.  If  these 
results  had  been  the  consequences  of  a  long  war — if  they  had 
been  the  results  of  a  struggle  like  that  we  underwent  in  the 
Crimea — I  do  not  think  they  would  have  been  even  then 
unsubstantial  or  unsatisfactory.  My  lords,  I  hope  that  you 
and  the  country  will  not  forget  that  these  results  have  been 
obtained  without  shedding  the  blood  of  a  single  Englishman ; 
and  if  there  has  been  some  expenditure,  it  has  been  an 
expenditure  which,  at  least,  has  shown  the  resources  and  deter- 
mination of  this  country.  Had  you  entered  into  that  war — 
for  which  you  were  prepared — and  well  prepared — probably 
in  a  month  you  would  have  exceeded  the  whole  expenditure 
you  have  now  incurred. 

My  lords,  I  now  ask  you  for  a  short  time  to  quit  Europe  and 


DISRAELI  353 

to  visit  Asia,  and  consider  the  labours  of  the  Congress  in  another 
quarter  of  the  world.  My  lords,  you  will  know  that  the  Rus- 
sian arms  met  with  great  success  in  Asia,  and  that  in  the  treaty 
of  San  Stefano  considerable  territories  were  yielded  by  Turkey 
to  Russia.  In  point  of  population  they  may  not  appear  to  be 
of  that  importance  that  they  are  generally  considered  ;  because 
it  is  a  fact  which  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  population 
which  was  yielded  to  Russia  by  Turkey  amounted  only  to 
about  250,000  souls  ;  and,  therefore,  if  you  look  to  the  question 
of  population,  and  to  the  increase  of  strength  in  a  State  which 
depends  on  population,  you  would  hardly  believe  that  the 
acquisition  of  250,000  new  subjects  is  a  sufficient  return  for 
the  terrible  military  losses  which  inevitably  must  accrue  from 
campaigns  in  that  country.  But  although  the  amount  of 
population  was  not  considerable,  the  strength  which  the 
Russians  acquired  was  of  a  very  different  character.  They 
obtained  Kars  by  conquest — they  obtained  Ardahan — another 
stronghold — they  obtained  Bayazid — and  the  valley  of  Alash- 
kerd  with  the  adjoining  territory,  which  contain  the  great 
commercial  routes  in  that  part  of  the  world.  They  also 
obtained  the  port  of  Batoum. 

Now,  my  lords,  the  Congress  of  BerUn  have  so  far  sanctioned 
the  treaty  of  San  Stefano  that,  with  the  exception  of  Bayazid 
and  the  valley  I  have  mentioned — no  doubt  very  important 
exceptions,  and  which  were  yielded  by  Russia  to  the  views 
of  the  Congress — they  have  consented  to  the  yielding  of  the 
places  I  have  named  to  Russia.  The  Congress  have  so  far 
approved  the  treaty  of  San  Stefano  that  they  have  sanctioned 
the  retention  by  Russia  of  Kars  and  Batoum.  Now  the 
question  arises — the  Congress  having  come  to  that  determina- 
tion— Was  it  a  wise  step  on  the  part  of  the  plenipotentiaries 
of  Her  Majesty  to  agree  to  that  decision  ?  That  is  a  question 
which  may  legitimately  be  asked.  We  might  have  broken  up 
the  Congress  and  said, "  We  will  not  consent  to  the  retention 
of  these  places  by  Russia,  and  we  will  use  our  force  to  oblige 
her  to  yield  them  up."  Now,  my  lords,  I  wish  fairly  to  con- 
sider what  was  our  position  in  this  state  of  affairs.  It  is  often 
argued  as  if  Russia  and  England  had  been  at  war,  and  peace 
was  negotiating  between  the  two  Powers.  That  was  not  the 
case.  The  rest  of  Europe  were  critics  over  a  treaty  which  was 
a  real  treaty  that  existed  between  Russia  and  Turkey.     Turkey 

23— (2170) 


354  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

had  given  up  Batoum,  she  had  given  up  Kars  and  Ardahan, 

<he  had  given  up  Bayazid. 
In  an  examination  of  the  question,  then,  we  must  remember 
hat  Russia  at  this  moment,  so  far  as  Europe  is  concerned,  has 
acquired  in  Europe  nothing  but  a  very  small  portion  of  terri- 
tory, occupied  by  130,000  inhabitants.'!  Well,  she  naturally 
expected  to  find  some  reward  in  her  conquests  in  Armenia 
for  the  sacrifices  which  she  had  made.  Well,  my  lords,  con- 
sider ^y^hat  these  conquests  are.  There  was  the  strong  fort  of 
Kars. '< We  might  have  gone  to  war  with  Russia  in  order  to 
prevent  her  acquiring  Kars  and  Batoum,  and  other  places  of 
less  importance.  The  war  would  not  have  been,  probably,  a 
very  short  war.  It  would  have  been  a  very  expensive  war — 
and,  like  most  wars,  it  would  probably  have  ended  in  some  com- 
promise, and  we  should  have  got  only  half  what  we  had  strug- 
gled for.  Let  us  look  these  two  considerable  points  fairly  in 
the  face.  Let  us  first  of  all  take  the  great  stronghold  of  Kars. 
Three  times  has  Russia  captured  Kars.  Three  times,  either 
by  our  influence  or  by  other  influences,  it  has  been  restored  to 
Turkey.  Were  we  to  go  to  war  for  Kars  and  restore  it  to  Turkey, 
and  then  to  wait  till  the  next  misunderstanding  between 
Russia  and  Turkey,  when  Kars  should  have  been  taken  again  ? 
Was  that  an  occasion  of  a  casus  belli  ?  I  do  not  think  your 
lordships  would  ever  sanction  a  war  carried  on  for  such  an 
object  and  under  such  circumstances. 

Then,  my  lords,  look  at  the  case  of  Batoum,  of  which  your 
lordships  have  heard  so  much.  I  should  have  been  very  glad 
if  Batoum  had  remained  in  the  possession  of  the  Turks,  on  the 
general  principle  that  the  less  we  had  reduced  its  territory 
in  that  particular  portion  of  the  globe,  the  better  it  would  be 
as  regards  the  prestige  on  which  the  influence  of  the  Ottoman 
Porte  much  depends  there.  But  let  us  see  what  is  this  Batoum 
of  which  you  have  heard  so  much.  It  is  generally  spoken  of 
in  society  and  in  the  world  as  if  it  were  a  sort  of  Portsmouth — 
whereas,  in  reality,  it  should  rather  be  compared  with  Cowes. 
It  will  hold  three  considerable  ships,  and  if  it  were  packed  like 
the  London  docks,  it  might  hold  six  ;  but  in  that  case  the 
danger,  if  the  wind  blew  from  the  north,  would  be  immense. 
You  cannot  increase  the  port  seaward  ;  for  though  the  water 
touching  the  shore  is  not  absolutely  fathomless,  it  is  Extremely 
deep,    and    you    cannot    make    any     artificial     harbour    or 


DISRAELI  355 

breakwater.  Unquestionably,  m  the  interior  the  port  might  be 
increased,  but  it  can  only  be  increased  by  first-rate  engineers, 
and  the  expenditure  of  miUions  of  capital ;  and  if  we  were  to 
calculate  the  completion  of  the  port  by  the  precedents  which 
exist  in  many  countries,  and  certainly  in  the  Black  Sea,  it 
would  not  be  completed  under  half-a-century.  Now  is  that  a 
question  for  which  England  would  be  justified  in  going  to  war 
with  Russia  ?  My  lords,  we  have,  therefore,  thought  it 
advisable  not  to  grudge  Russia  those  conquests  which  have 
been  made — especially  after  obtaining  the  restoration  of  the 
town  of  Bayazid  and  its  important  district. 

But  it  seemed  to  us  the  time  had  come  when  we  ought  to 
consider  whether  certain  efforts  should  not  be  made  to  put  an 
end  to  these  perpetually  recurring  wars  between  the  Porte 
and  Russia,  ending,  it  may  be,  sometimes  apparently  in  com- 
paratively insignificant  results  ;  but  always  terminating  with 
one  fatal  consequence — namely,  shaking  to  the  centre  the  influ- 
ence and  the  prestige  of  the  Porte  in  Asia,  and  diminishing 
its  means  of  profitably  and  advantageously  governing  that 
country.  My  lords,  it  seemed  to  us  that  as  we  had  now  taken 
and  as  Europe  generally  had  taken,  so  avowedly  deep  an  interest 
in  the  welfare  of  the  subjects  of  the  Porte  in  Europe,  the  time 
had  come  when  we  ought  to  consider  whether  we  could  not 
do~sDmething  which  would  improve  the  general  condition  of 
the  dominions  of  the  Sultan  in  Asia  ;  and,  instead  of  these 
most  favoured  portions  of  the  globe  every  year  being  in  a  more 
forlorn  and  disadvantageous  position,  whether  it  would  not  be 
possible  to  take  some  steps  which  would  secure  at  least  tran- 
quiUity  and  order ;  and,  when  tranquillity  and  order  were 
secured,  whether  some  opportunity  might  not  be  given  to 
Europe  to  develop  the  resources  of  a  country  which  Nature 
has  made  so  rich  and  teeming. 

My  lords,  we  occupy  with  respect  to  this  part  of  the  world 
a  peculiar  position,  which  is  shared  by  no  other  Power.  Our 
Indian  Empire  is  on  every  occasion  on  which  these  discussions 
occur,  or  these  troubles  occur,  or  these  settlements  occur — 
our  Indian  Empire  is  to  England  a  source  of  grave  anxiety, 
and  the  time  appeared  to  have  arrived  when,  if  possible,  we 
should  terminate  that  anxiety.  In  all  the  questions  connected 
with  European  Turkey  we  had  the  assistance  and  sympathy 
sometimes  of  all,  and  often  of  many,  of  the  European  Powers 


356  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

— because  they  were  interested  in  the  question  who  should 
pcssess  Constantinople,  and  who  should  have  the  command 
of  the  Danube  and  the  freedom  of  the  Mediterranean.  But 
when  we  came  to  considerations  connected  with  our  Oriental 
Empire  itself,  they  naturally  are  not  so  generally  interested 
as  they  are  in  those  which  relate  to  the  European  portion  of 
the  dominions  of  the  Porte,  and  we  have  to  look  to  our  own 
resources  alone.  There  has  been  no  want,  on  our  part,  of 
invitations  to  neutral  Powers  to  join  with  us  in  preventing 
or  in  arresting  war.  Besides  the  great  Treatj^  of  Paris,  there 
was  the  tripartite  treaty,  which,  if  acted  upon,  would  have 
prevented  war.  But  that  treaty  could  not  be  acted  upon, 
from  the  unwillingness  of  the  parties  to  it  to  act ;  and  there- 
fore we  must  clearly  perceive  that  if  anything  could  be  effectu- 
ally arranged,  as  far  as  our  Oriental  Empire  is  concerned,  the 
arrangements  must  be  made  by  ourselves.  Now,  this  was  the 
origin  of  that  Convention  at  Constantinople  which  is  on  your 
lordships'  table,  and  in  that  Convention  our  object  was  not 
merely  a  military  or  chiefly  a  military  object.  Our  object  was 
to  place  this  country  certainly  in  a  position  in  which  its  advice 
and  in  which  its  conduct  might  at  least  have  the  advantage 
of  being  connected  with  a  military  power  and  with  that  force 
which  it  is  necessary  to  possess  often  in  great  transactions, 
though  you  may  not  fortunately  feel  that  it  is  necessary  to 
have  recourse  to  that  force. 

Our  object  in  entering  into  that  arrangement  with  Turkey 
was,  as  I  said  before,  to  produce  tranquillity  and  order.  When 
tranquillity  and  order  were  produced,  we  believed  that  the 
time  would  come  when  the  energy  and  enterprise  of  Europe 
might  be  invited  to  what  really  is  another  continent,  as  far  as 
the  experience  of  man  is  concerned,  and  that  its  development 
will  add  greatly  not  merely  to  the  wealth  and  the  prosperity 
of  the  inhabitants,  but  to  the  wealth  and  prosperity  of  Europe. 
My  lords,  I  am  surprised  to  hear — for  though  I  have  not  heard 
it  myself  from  any  authority,  it  is  so  generally  in  men's  mouths 
that  I  am  bound  to  notice  it — that  the  step  we  have  taken 
should  be  represented  as  one  that  is  calculated  to  excite  the 
suspicion  or  enmity  of  any  of  our  allies,  or  of  any  State.  My 
lords,  I  am  convinced  that  when  a  little  time  has  elapsed,  and 
when  people  are  better  acquainted  with  this  subject  than 
they  are  at  present,  no  one  will  accuse  England  of  having 


DISRAELI  357 

acted  in  this  matter  but  with  frankness  and  consideration 
for  other  Powers.  And  if  there  be  a  Power  in  existence  to 
which  we  have  endeavoured  to  show  most  consideration  from 
particular  circumstances  in  this  matter  it  is  France.  There  is 
no  step  of  this  kind  that  I  would  take  without  considering  the 
effect  it  might  have  upon  the  feelings  of  France — a  nation  to 
whom  we  are  bound  by  almost  every  tie  that  can  unite  a  people, 
and  with  whom  our  intimacy  is  daily  increasing  If  there  could 
be  any  step  which  of  all  others  was  least  calculated  to  excite 
the  suspicion  of  France,  it  would  appear  to  be  this — because 
we  avoided  Egypt,  knowing  how  susceptible  France  is  with 
regard  to  Egypt  ;  we  avoided  Syria,  knowing  how  susceptible 
France  is  on  the  subject  of  Syria  ;  and  we  avoided  availing 
ourselves  of  any  part  of  the  terra  firma,  because  we  would 
not  hurt  the  feelings  or  excite  the  suspicions  of  France. 
France  knows  that  for  the  last  two  or  three  years  we  have 
listened  to  no  appeal  which  involved  anything  like  an  acquisi- 
tion of  territory,  because  the  territory  which  might  have  come 
to  us  would  have  been  territory  which  France  would  see  in 
our  hands  with  suspicion  and  dislike. 

But  I  must  make  this  observation  to  your  lordships.  We- 
have  a  substantial  interest  in  the  East  ;  it  is  a  commanding 
interest,  and  its  behest  must  be  obeyed.  But  the  interest  of 
France  in  Egypt,  and  her  interest  in  Syria  are,  as  she  acknow- 
ledges, sentimental  and  traditionary  interests  ;  and,  although 
I  respect  them,  and  although  I  wish  to  see  in  the  Lebanon  and 
Egypt  the  influence  of  France  fairly  and  justly  maintained, 
and  although  her  officers  and  ours  in  that  part  of  the  world 
— and  especially  in  Egypt — are  acting  together  with  confidence 
and  trust,  we  must  remember  that  our  connection  with  the 
East  is  not  merely  an  affair  of  sentiment  and  tradition,  but 
that  we  have  urgent  and  substantial  and  enormous  interests 
which  we  must  guard  and  keep.  Therefore,  when  we  find  that 
the  progress  of  Russia  is  a  progress  which,  whatever  may  be  the 
intentions  of  Russia,  necessarily  in  that  part  of  the  world 
produces  such  a  state  of  disorganisation  and  want  of  confidence 
in  the  Porte,  it  comes  to  this — that  if  we  do  not  interfere  in 
vindication  of  our  own  interests,  that  part  of  Asia  must  become 
the  victim  of  anarchy,  and  ultimately  become  part  of  the 
possessions  of  Russia. 

Now,  my  lords,  I  have  ventured  to  review  the  chief  points 


358  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

connected  with  the  subject  on  which  I  wished  to  address  you — 

namely,  what  was  the  pohcy  pursued  by  us,  both  at  the  Congress 
of  Berhn  and  in  the  Convention  of  Constantinople  ?  I  am 
told,  indeed,  that  we  have  incurred  an  awful  responsibility 
by  the  Convention  into  which  we  have  entered.  My  lords,  a 
prudent  minister  certainly  would  not  recklessly  enter  into  any 
responsibility  ;  but  a  minister  who  is  afraid  to  enter  into  any 
responsibility  is,  to  my  mind,  not  a  prudent  minister.  We  do 
not,  my  lords,  wish  to  enter  into  any  unnecessary  responsibihty  ; 
but  there  is  one  responsibility  from  which  we  certainly  shrink  ; 
we  shrink  from  the  responsibility  of  handing  to  our  successors 
a  weakened  or  a  diminished  Empire.  Our  opinion  is,  that  the 
course  we  have  taken  will  arrest  the  great  evils  which  are 
destroying  Asia  Minor  and  the  equally  rich  countries  beyond. 
We  see  in  the  present  state  of  affairs  the  Porte  losing  its  influ- 
ence over  its  subjects  ;  we  see  a  certainty,  in  our  opinion,  of 
increasing  anarchy,  of  the  dissolution  of  all  those  ties  which 
though  feeble,  yet  still  exist  and  which  have  kept  society 
together  in  those  countries.  We  see  the  inevitable  result  of 
such  a  state  of  things,  and  we  cannot  blame  Russia  for  availing 
herself  of  it.  But,  yielding  to  Russia  what  she  has  obtained, 
we  say  to  her — **  Thus  far,  and  no  farther."  Asia  is  large 
enough  for  both  of  us.  There  is  no  reason  for  these  constant 
wars,  or  fears  of  wars,  between  Russia  and  England.  Before 
the  circumstances  which  led  to  the  recent  disastrous  war, 
when  none  of  those  events  which  we  have  seen  agitating  the 
world  have  occurred,  and  when  we  were  speaking  in  "  another 
place  "  of  the  conduct  of  Russia  in  Central  Asia,  I  vindicated 
that  conduct,  which  I  thought  was  unjustly  attacked,  and  I 
said  then — what  I  repeat  now, — there  is  room  enough  for 
Russia  and  England  in  Asia. 

But  the  room  that  we  require  we  must  secure.  We  have, 
therefore,  entered  into  an  alliance — a  defensive  alliance — with 
Turkey,  to  guard  her  against  any  further  attack  from  Russia. 
We  believe  that  the  result  of  this  Convention  will  be  order  and 
tranquillity.  And  then  it  will  be  for  Europe — for  we  ask  no 
exclusive  privileges  or  commercial  advantages — it  will  then  be 
for  Europe  to  assist  England  in  availing  ourselves  of  the  wealth 
which  has  been  so  long  neglected  and  undeveloped  in  regions 
once  so  fertile  and  so  favoured.  We  are  told,  as  I  have  said 
before,  that  we  are  undertaking  great  responsibilities.     From 


DISRAELI  359 

those  responsibilities  we  do  not  shrink.  We  think  that,  with 
prudence  and  discretion,  we  shall  bring  about  a  state  of  affairs 
as  advantageous  for  Europe  as  for  ourselves  ;  and  in  that 
conviction  we  cannot  bring  ourselves  to  believe  that  the  act 
which  we  have  recommended  is  one  that  leads  to  trouble  and 
to  warfare.  No,  my  lords,  I  am  sure  there  will  be  no  jealousy 
between  England  and  France  upon  this  subject.  In  taking 
Cyprus  the  movement  is  not  Mediterranean,  it  is  Indian.  We 
have  taken  a  step  there  which  we  think  necessary  for  the 
maintenance  of  our  Empire  and  for  its  preservation  in  peace. 

If  that  be  our  first  consideration,  our  next  is  the  development 
of  the  country.  And  upon  that  subject  I  am  told  that  it  was 
expected"  to-night  that  I  should  in  detail  lay  before  the  House 
the  minute  system  by  which  all  those  results  which  years  may 
bring  about  are  instantly  to  be  acquired.  I,  my  lords,  am 
prepared  to  do  nothing  of  the  kind.  We  must  act  with  con- 
siderable caution.  We  are  acting  with  a  Power,  let  me  remind 
the  House,  which  is  an  independent  power — the  Sultan — and 
we  can  decide  nothing  but  with  his  consent  and  sanction.  We 
have  been  in  communication  with  that  Prince — who,  I  may  be 
allowed  to  remind  the  House,  has  other  things  to  think  about, 
even  than  Asia  Minor  ;  for  no  man  was  ever  tried,  from  his 
accession  to  the  throne  till  this  moment,  so  severely  as  the 
Sultan  has  been  ;  but  he  has  invariably  during  his  reign 
expressed  his  desire  to  act  with  England  and  to  act  with 
Europe,  and  especially  in  the  better  administration  and 
management  of  his  affairs.  The  time  will  come — and  I  hope 
it  is  not  distant — when  my  noble  friend  the  Secretary  of  State 
for  Foreign  Affairs  may  be  able  to  communicate  to  the  House 
details  of  these  matters,  which  will  be  most  interesting.  But 
we  must  protest  against  being  forced  into  statements  on 
matters  of  importance,  which  are  necessarily  still  immature. 
And  we  must  remember  that,  formally  speaking,  even  the 
Treaty  of  Berlin  has  not  been  ratified,  and  there  are  many  things 
which  cannot  even  be  commenced  until  the  ratification  of  that 
treaty  has  occurred. 

My  lords,  I  have  now  laid  before  you  the  general  outline  of 
the  policy  we  have  pursued,  both  in  the  Congress  of  Berlin 
and  at  Constantinople.  They  are  intimately  connected  with 
each  other,  and  they  must  be  considered  together.  I  only 
hope   that   the  house   will  not   misunderstand — and  I  think 


360  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

the  country  will  not  misunderstand — our  motives  in 
occupying  Cyprus,  and  in  encouraging  those  intimate  relations 
between  ourselves  and  the  Government  and  the  population  of 
Turkey.  They  are  not  movements  of  war  ;  they  are  opera- 
ti6ris~6f  peace  and  civilization.  We  have  no  reason  to  fear 
war.  Her  Majesty  has  fleets  and  armies  which  are  second  to 
none.  England  must  have  seen  with  pride  the  Mediterranean 
covered  with  her  ships  ;  she  must  have  seen  with  pride  the 
discipline  and  devotion  which  have  been  shown  to  her  and  her 
Government  by  all  her  troops,  drawn  from  every  part  of  her 
Empire.  I  leave  it  to  the  illustrious  duke,  in  whose  presence 
I  speak,  to  bear  witness  to  the  spirit  of  imperial  patriotism 
which  has  been  exhibited  by  the  troops  from  India,  which  he 
recently  reviewed  at  Malta.  But  it  is  not  on  our  fleets  and 
armies,  however  necessary  they  may  be  for  the  maintenance 
of  our  imperial  strength,  that  I  alone  or  mainly  depend  in  that 
enterprise  on  which  this  country  is  about  to  enter.  It  is  on 
what  I  most  highly  value — the  consciousness  that  in  the 
Eastern  nations  there  is  confidence  in  this  country,  and  that, 
while  they  know  we  can  enforce  our  policy,  at  the  same  time 
they  know  that  our  Empire  is  an  Empire  of  liberty,  of  truth, 
and  of  justice. 


JOHN    BRIGHT 

If  Blight's  speeches  were  in  the  ordinary  sense  more  eloquent 
than  Cobden's,  they  had,  hke  his,  the  merit  of  perfect  lucidity. 
Bright  was  not  a  deep  thinker,  nor  did  he  trouble  himself 
about  the  philosophy  of  legislation.  He  combined  with  a 
great  command  of  language  a  rich  vein  of  occasional  humour, 
and  a  power  of  leading  up  to  a  height  from  which  the  whole 
subject  he  was  discussing  could  be  in  a  moment  surveyed. 
His  mind  was  not  the  mind  of  a  debater.  In  the  campaign 
against  the  Corn-laws  he  usually  left  to  Cobden  the  duty  of 
bringing  facts  to  bear  upon  assumptions.  What  Bright  could 
do  better  than  any  other  man  was  to  clothe  in  memorable 
phrases  the  conclusions  he  desired  to  enforce.  He  was  a  student 
of  the  English  language  from  the  oratorical  point  of  view,  an 
accomplished  artist  in  the  structure  of  sentences  which 
embodied  the  feehngs  of  his  audience  or  his  party.  It  would 
be  unjust  to  say  that  he  spoke  above  his  abilities.  He  always 
had  a  plain  and  definite  idea  of  what  he  meant  to  say.  But 
it  was  not  his  habit  to  deal  with  the  prehminary  stages  of  a 
conflict.  He  took  up  the  question  where  it  emerged  from 
the  dialectical  phase,  and  clothed  it  in  a  form  which  made 
it  impressive  to  multitudes  of  hearers  and  readers.  No 
great  orator  has  known  more  accurately  and  completely 
how  to  be  emphatic  without  becoming  wearisome,  or  how 
to  point  without  exaggerating  a  truth.  When  he  re- 
marked, in  1874,  that  if  the  Conservatives  had  been  in  the 
wilderness,  they  would  have  complained  of  the  Ten  Command- 
ments as  a  piece  of  harassing  legislation,  he  only  put  into  a 
memorable  and  humorous  shape  the  answer  to  a  charge  that 

361 


362  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

Liberal  legislation  had  been  harassing  and  meddlesome.  He 
has  been  described  as  an  opponent  of  all  war.  But  if  his 
speeches  against  the  Crimean  War  are  examined,  they  will  be 
found  to  involve  a  thorough  acquaintance  with  the  negotia- 
tions and  a  hearty  assurance  that  British  interests  were  not 
concerned  in  them.  Bright  would  have  been  a  much  less 
formidable  antagonist  if  he  had  not  taken  the  trouble  of 
mastering  the  case  of  his  opponents.  When,  however,  he  came 
to  set  forth  his  own,  he  did  not  always  accompany  it  with  the 
reasons  which  had  induced  him  to  adopt  it  himself.  If  he 
sometimes  appeared  to  declaim  rather  than  to  argue,  it  was 
not  so  much  because  his  arguments  were  bad  as  because  his 
declamation  was  good.  He  never  spoke  upon  a  topic  which 
he  had  not  previously  investigated.  He  was  neither  hasty  nor 
careless.  But  he  was  not  given  to  abstractions,  nor  to  details. 
His  plan  was  to  think  the  matter  out,  and  then  present  his 
conclusions  to  others  as  clearly  as  he  saw  them  himself.  He 
seemed  not  so  much  an  advocate  as  a  judicial  expositor,  bringing 
home  sahent  aspects  of  a  controversy  in  a  light  which  illustrated 
them  on  every  side.  He  did  not  try  to  become  a  debater  in 
the  House  of  Commons.  The  cut  and  thrust  of  mere  verbal 
fencing  were  not  in  his  line.  But  he  could  appeal  to  the 
judgment  as  well  as  the  conscience  of  great  assemblies  with  a 
vigour  and  directness  which  lost  nothing  of  their  force  because 
they  assumed  that  on  broad  and  general  grounds  of  ethics 
and  politics  he  and  his  hearers  were  agreed. 

When  Bright  first  came  into  Parliament,  the  agitation 
against  the  Corn-laws  was  in  full  swing,  and  Charles  Villiers 
was  conducting  the  movement  in  the  House  of  Commons. 
Although  some  of  Bright's  greatest  speeches  were  made  in  the 
House,  his  fame  as  an  orator  rests  chiefly  upon  addresses  out- 
side. He  never  acquired,  nor  perhaps  sought  to  acquire,  a 
Parliamentary  manner.  While  he  dealt  in  simple  language 
with  familiar  themes,  he  could  at  times  invest  great  truths 
and  ideas  with  a  splendour  of  diction  peculiarly  his   own. 


BRIGHT  363 

Unlike  Cobden,  he  rather  avoided  detail,  and  preferred  to 
bring  generalities  within  the  scope  of  his  argument  by  a  bold 
appeal  to  first  principles  for  the  confirmation  of  his  case.  He 
did  not  shrink,  any  more  than  Cobden,  from  setting  himself 
against  prevailing  opinion.  The  Crimean  War,  and  the  Civil 
War  in  America,  divided  him  sharply  from  the  mass  of  his 
fellow-countrymen  in  the  first  instance,  and  from  the  middle 
as  well  as  the  upper  class  in  the  second.  He  could  always 
command  a  hearing.  But  throughout  his  life,  or  at  all  events 
throughout  the  greater  part  of  it,  he  was  fighting  against 
tremendous  odds.  The  Corn-laws  were  repealed  because  the 
first  Conservative  statesman  of  the  age  was  converted  by  the 
arguments  of  Cobden,  and  the  spectacle  of  Ireland.  The  war 
with  Russia  proceeded  to  its  worst  without  any  apparent 
effect  from  Bright's  unflinching  opposition.  Disraeli  assisted 
Bright  by  absolutely  refusing  to  take  part  in  any  agitation 
against  the  Northern  states  of  the  Union  during  the  American 
conflict.  Bright's  influence  was  not  immediate.  Gradually 
both  thinkers  and  practical  men  came  round  to  see  that  he  had 
been  more  prudent  and  far-sighted  than  the  bulk  of  his  fellow- 
countrymen.  But  he  had  not  the  power  of  impressing  his 
views  upon  interested  or  indifferent  opinion.  No  man  could 
excite  more  enthusiasm,  or  provoke  more  hostility.  If  he  had 
declaimed  less,  and  argued  more,  he  might  have  had  a  larger 
following,  and  come  nearer  to  practical  success.  He  saw  very 
clearly  straight  ahead.  He  overlooked  in  his  onward  course  the 
difliculties  and  perplexities  which  encumbered  the  path  of 
those  who  had  to  deal  with  political  problems  from  day  to 
day.  He  was  too  apt  to  be  impatient  of  diplomacy  and  states- 
manship, which  are  no  doubt  often  pretentious  and  unavailing, 
but  are  nevertheless  essential  to  the  conduct  of  public  affairs. 
The  bhndness  of  the  policy  which  maintained  the  Corn-laws 
imbued  Bright  from  his  youth  with  the  notion  that  a  plain 
manufacturer  understood  the  business  of  government  quite 
as  well  as  a  Minister  of  State. 


364  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

Russia  :     Negotiations  at  Vienna 

House  of  Commons,  February  23rd,  1855 

I  AM  one  of  those  forming  the  majority  of  the  House,  I  suspect, 
who  are  disposed  to  look  upon  our  present  position  as  one  of 
more  than  ordinary  gravity.  I  am  one,  also,  of  those,  not 
probably  constituting  so  great  a  majority  of  the  House,  who 
regret  extremely  the  circumstances  which  have  obliged  the 
right  hon.  gentlemen  who  are  now  upon  this  bench  to  secede 
from  the  Government  of  the  noble  Lord,  the  member  for 
Tiverton.  I  do  not  take  upon  me  for  a  moment  to  condemn 
them  ;  because  I  think,  if  there  be  anything  in  which  a  man 
must  judge  for  himself,  it  is  whether  he  should  take  office  if 
it  be  offered  to  him,  whether  he  should  secede  from  office, 
whether  he  should  serve  under  a  particular  leader,  or  engage 
in  the  service  of  the  Crown,  or  retain  office  in  a  particular 
emergency. 

In  such  cases  I  think  that  the  decision  must  be  left  to  his 
own  conscience  and  his  own  judgment ;  and  I  should  be  the 
last  person  to  condemn  anyone  for  the  decision  to  which  he 
might  come.  I  think,  however,  that  the  speech  of  the  right 
hon.  gentleman  is  one  which  the  House  cannot  have  listened 
to  without  being  convinced  that  he  and  his  retiring  colleagues 
have  been  moved  to  the  course  which  they  have  taken  by  a 
dehberate  judgment  upon  this  question,  which,  whether  it  be 
right  or  wrong,  is  fully  explained,  and  is  honest  to  the  House 
and  to  the  country. 

Now,  Sir,  I  said  that  I  regretted  their  secession,  because  I 
am  one  of  those  who  do  not  wish  to  see  the  Government  of  the 
noble  Lord,  the  member  for  Tiverton,  overthrown.  The  House 
knows  well,  and  nobody  knows  better  than  the  noble  Lord, 
that  I  have  never  been  one  of  his  ardent  and  enthusiastic 
supporters.  I  have  often  disapproved  of  his  policy  both  at 
home  and  abroad  ;  but  I  hope  that  I  do  not  bear  him,  as  I 
can  honestly  say  that  I  do  not  bear  to  any  man  in  this  House — 
for  from  all  I  have  received  unnumbered  courtesies — any 
feeling  that  takes  even  the  tinge  of  a  personal  animosity  :  and 
even  if  I  did,  at  a  moment  so  grave  as  this,  no  feeling  of  a 
personal  character  whatever  should  prevent  me  from  doing 
that  which  I  think  now,  of  all  times,  we  are  called  upon  to  do — 
that  which  we  honestly  and  conscientiously  believe  to  be  for 


BRIGHT  365 

the  permanent  interests  of  the  country.  We  are  in  this  position, 
that  for  a  month  past,  at  least,  there  has  been  a  chaos  in  the 
regions  of  the  Administration.  Nothing  can  be  more  embar- 
rassing— I  had  almost  said  nothing  can  be  more  humiliating 
— than  the  position  which  we  offer  to  the  country  ;  and  I  am 
afraid  that  the  knowledge  of  our  position  is  not  confined  to 
the  limits  of  these  islands. 

It  will  be  admitted  that  we  want  a  Government,  that  if  the 
country  is  to  be  saved  from  the  breakers  which  now  surround 
it,  there  must  be  a  Government ;  and  it  devolves  upon  the 
House  of  Commons  to  rise  to  the  gravity  of  the  occasion,  and 
to  support  any  man  who  is  conscious  of  his  responsibility,  and 
who  is  honestly  offering  and  endeavouring  to  deliver  the 
country  from  the  embarrassment  in  which  we  now  find  it. 
We  are  at  war,  and  I  shall  not  say  one  single  sentence  with 
regard  to  the  policy  of  the  war  or  its  origin,  and  I  know  not 
that  I  shall  say  a  single  sentence  with  regard  to  the  conduct  of 
it ;  but  the  fact  is  that  we  are  at  war  with  the  greatest  military 
power,  probably,  of  the  world,  and  that  we  are  carrying  on  our 
operations  at  a  distance  of  3,000  miles  from  home,  and  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  the  strongest  fortifications  of  that  great  mili- 
tary Empire.  I  will  not  stop  to  criticize — though  it  really  invites 
me — the  fact  that  some  who  have  told  us  that  we  were  in  danger 
from  the  aggressions  of  that  Empire,  at  the  same  time  told  us 
that  that  Empire  was  powerless  for  aggression,  and  also  that  it 
was  impregnable  to  attack.  By  some  means,  however,  the 
public  have  been  alarmed,  as  if  that  aggressive  power  were 
unbounded,  and  they  have  been  induced  to  undertake  an 
expedition,  as  if  the  invasion  of  an  impregnable  country  were 
a  matter  of  hohday-making  rather  than  of  war. 

But  we  are  now  in  a  pecuHar  position  with  regard  to  that 
war ;  for,  if  I  am  not  mistaken — and  I  think  I  gathered  as 
much  from  the  language  of  the  right  hon.  gentleman — at  this 
very  moment  terms  have  been  agreed  upon — agreed  upon  by 
the  Cabinet  of  Lord  Aberdeen  ;  consented  to  by  the  noble 
Lord,  the  member  for  Tiverton,  when  he  was  in  that  Cabinet ; 
and  ratified  and  confirmed  by  him  upon  the  formation  of  his 
own  Government — and  that  those  terms  are  now  specially 
known  and  understood  ;  and  that  they  have  been  offered  to  the 
Government  with  which  this  country  is  at  war,  and  in  con- 
junction with  France  and  Austria — one,  certainly,  and  the 


366  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

other  supposed  to  be,  an  ally  of  this  country.  Now,  those 
terms  consist  of  four  propositions,  which  I  shall  neither  describe 
nor  discuss,  because  they  are  known  to  the  House  ;  but  three 
of  them  are  not  matters  of  dispute  ;  and  with  regard  to  the 
other  I  think  that  the  noble  Lord,  the  member  for  the  City  of 
London,  stated,  upon  a  recent  occasion,  that  it  was  involved 
in  this  proposition — that  the  preponderant  power  of  Russia 
in  the  Black  Sea  should  cease,  and  that  Russia  had  accepted 
it  with  that  interpretation.  Therefore,  whatever  difference 
arises  is  merely  as  to  the  mode  in  which  that  "  preponderant 
power  "  shall  be  understood  or  made  to  cease.  Now,  there  are 
some  gentlemen  not  far  from  me — there  are  men  who  write  in 
the  public  press — there  are  thousands  of  persons  in  the  United 
Kingdom  at  this  moment — and  I  learn  with  astonishment  and 
dismay  that  there  are  persons  even  in  that  grave  assembly 
which  we  are  not  allowed  to  specify  by  a  name  in  this  House — 
who  have  entertained  dreams — impracticable  theories — expec- 
tations of  vast  European  and  Asiatic  changes,  of  severed  nation- 
alities, and  of  a  new  map  of  Europe,  if  not  of  the  world,  as  a 
result  or  an  object  of  this  war.  And  it  is  from  these  gentlemen 
that  we  hear  continually,  addressed  to  the  noble  Lord,  the 
member  for  Tiverton,  language  which  I  cannot  well  understand. 
They  call  upon  him  to  act,  to  carry  on  the  war  with  vigour, 
and  to  prosecute  enterprises  which  neither  his  Government 
nor  any  other  government  has  seriously  entertained  ;  but 
I  would  appeal  to  those  gentlemen  whether  it  does  not  become 
us — regarding  the  true  interests  and  the  true  honour  of  the 
country — if  our  Government  have  offered  terms  of  peace  to 
Russia,  not  to  draw  back  from  those  terms,  not  to  cause  any 
unnecessary  delay,  not  to  adopt  any  subterfuge  to  prevent 
those  terms  being  accepted,  not  to  attempt  shuffles  of  any  kind, 
not  to  endeavour  to  insist  upon  harder  terms,  and  thus  make  the 
approach  of  peace  even  still  more  distant  than  it  is  at  present  ? 
Whatever  may  be  said  about  the  honour  of  the  country  in 
any  other  relation  involved  in  this  affair,  this,  at  least,  I 
expect  every  man  who  hears  me  to  admit — that  if  terms  of 
peace  have  been  offered  they  have  been  offered  in  good  faith, 
and  shall  be  in  honour  and  good  faith  adhered  to  ;  so  that  if, 
unfortunately  for  Europe  and  humanity,  there  should  be  any 
failure  at  Vienna,  no  man  should  point  to  the  English  Govern- 
ment and  to  the  authorities  and  rulers  of  this  Christian  country. 


BRIGHT  367 

and  say  that  we  have  prolonged  the  war  and  the  infinite 
calamities  of  which  it  is  the  cause. 

I  have  said  that  I  was  anxious  that  the  Government  of  the 
noble  Lord  should  not  be  overthrown.  Will  the  House  allow 
me  to  say  why  I  am  so  ?  The  noble  Lord  at  the  head  of  the 
Government  has  long  been  a  great  authority  with  many  persons 
in  this  country  upon  foreign  policy.  His  late  colleague,  and 
present  envoy  to  Vienna,  has  long  been  a  great  authority  with 
a  large  portion  of  the  people  of  this  country  upon  almost  all 
pohtical  questions.  With  the  exception  of  that  unhappy 
selection  of  an  Ambassador  at  Constantinople,  I  hold  that  there 
are  no  men  in  this  country  more  truly  responsible  for  our 
present  position  in  this  war  than  the  noble  Lord  who  now 
fills  the  highest  office  in  the  State  and  the  noble  Lord  who  is 
now,  I  trust,  rapidly  approaching  the  scene  of  his  labours  in 
Vienna.  I  do  not  say  this  now  to  throw  blame  upon  these 
noble  Lords,  because  their  pohcy,  which  I  hold  to  be  wrong, 
they,  without  doubt,  as  firrnly  believe  to  be  right ;  but  I  am 
only  stating  facts.  It  has  been  their  policy  that  they  have 
entered  into  war  for  certain  objects,  and  I  am  sure  that  neither 
the  noble  Lord  at  the  head  of  the  Government  nor  his  late 
colleague  the  noble  Lord,  the  member  for  London,  wiU  shrink 
from  the  responsibility  which  attaches  to  them.  Well,  Sir,  now 
we  have  these  noble  Lords  in  a  position  which  is,  in  my  humble 
opinion,  favourable  to  the  termination  of  the  troubles  which 
exist.  I  think  that  the  noble  Lord  at  the  head  of  the  Govern- 
ment himself  would  have  more  influence  in  stilling  whatever 
may  exist  of  clamour  in  this  country  than  any  other  member  of 
this  House.  I  think,  also,  that  the  noble  Lord,  the  Member 
for  London,  would  not  have  undertaken  the  mission  to  Vienna 
if  he  had  not  entertained  some  strong  belief  that,  by  so  doing, 
he  might  bring  the  war  to  an  end.  Nobody  gains  reputation 
by  a  failure  in  negotiation,  and  as  that  noble  Lord  is  well 
acquainted  with  the  whole  question  from  the  beginning  to  end, 
I  entertain  a  hope — I  will  not  say  a  sanguine  hope — that  the 
result  of  that  mission  to  Vienna  will  be  to  bring  about  a  peace, 
to  extricate  this  country  from  some  of  those  difl&culties 
inseparable  from  a  state  of  war. 

There  is  one  subject  upon  which  I  should  like  to  put  a  ques- 
tion to  the  noble  Lord  at  the  head  of  the  Government.  I 
shall  not  say  one  word  here  about  the  state  of  the  army  in  the 


368  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

Crimea,  or  one  word  about  its  numbers  or  its  condition.  Every 
member  of  this  House,  every  inhabitant  of  this  country,  has 
been  sufficiently  harrowed  with  details  regarding  it.  To  my 
solemn  belief,  thousands — nay,  scores  of  thousands  of  persons 
— have  retired  to  rest,  night  after  night,  whose  slumbers  have 
been  disturbed  or  whose  dreams  have  been  based  upon  the 
sufferings  and  agonies  of  our  soldiers  in  the  Crimea.  I  should 
like  to  ask  the  noble  Lord  at  the  head  of  the  Government — 
although  I  am  not  sure  that  he  will  feel  that  he  can  or  ought 
to  answer  the  question — whether  the  noble  Lord,  the  member 
for  London,  has  power,  after  discussions  have  commenced,  and 
as  soon  as  there  shall  be  established  good  grounds  for  believing 
that  the  negotiations  for  peace  will  prove  successful,  to  enter 
into  any  armistice  ?     [No  !    no  !] 

I  know  not.  Sir,  who  it  is  that  says  "  No,  no,"  but  I  should 
like  to  see  any  man  get  up  and  say  that  the  destruction  of 
200,000  human  lives  lost  on  all  sides  during  the  course  of  this 
unhappy  conflict  is  not  a  sufficient  sacrifice.  You  are  not 
pretending  to  conquer  territory — you  are  not  pretending  to 
hold  fortified  or  unfortified  towns  ;  you  have  offered  terms  of 
peace  which,  as  I  understand  them,  I  do  not  say  are  not  mode- 
rate ;  and  breathes  there  a  man  in  this  House  or  in  this  country 
whose  appetite  for  blood  is  so  insatiable  that,  even  when  terms 
of  peace  have  been  offered  and  accepted,  he  pines  for  that 
assault  in  which  of  Russian,  Turk,  French  and  English,  as  sure 
as  one  man  dies,  20,000  corpses  will  strew  the  streets  of  Sebas- 
topol  ?  I  say  I  should  like  to  ask  the  noble  Lord — and  I  am 
sure  that  he  will  feel,  and  that  this  House  will  feel,  that  I  am 
speaking  in  no  unfriendly  manner  towards  the  Government 
of  which  he  is  at  the  head — I  should  like  to  know,  and  I  venture 
to  hope  that  it  is  so,  if  the  noble  Lord,  the  member  for  London, 
has  power,  at  the  earhest  stage  of  these  proceedings  at  Vienna, 
at  which  it  can  properly  be  done — and  I  should  think  that  it 
might  properly  be  done  at  a  very  early  stage — to  adopt  a  course 
by  which  all  further  waste  of  human  life  may  be  put  an  end  to, 
and  further  animosity  between  three  great  nations  be,  as  far 
as  possible,  prevented  ? 

I  appeal  to  the  noble  Lord  at  the  head  of  the  Government 
and  to  this  House  ;  I  am  not  now  complaining  of  the  war — 
I  am  not  now  complaining  of  the  terms  of  peace,  nor,  indeed; 
of  anything  that  has  been  done — but  I  wish  to  suggest  to  this 


BRIGHT  369 

House  what,  I  believe,  thousands,  and  tens  of  thousands,  of  the 
most  educated  and  of  the  most  Christian  portion  of  the  people  of 
this  country  are  feeling  upon  this  subject,  although,  indeed, 
in  the  midst  of  a  certain  clamour  in  the  country,  they  do  not 
give  public  expression  to  their  feelings.  Your  country  is  not 
in  an  advantageous  state  at  this  moment ;  from  one  end  of  the 
kingdom  to  the  other  there  is  a  general  collapse  of  industry. 
Those  members  of  this  House  not  intimately  acquainted  with# 
the  trade  and  commerce  of  this  country  do  not  fully  compre- 
hend our  position  as  to  the  diminution  of  emplo5nTient  and  the 
lessening  of  wages.  An  increase  in  the  cost  of  living  is  finding 
its  way  to  the  homes  and  hearts  of  a  vast  number  of  the 
labouring  population. 

At  the  same  time  there  is  growing  up — and,  notwithstanding 
what  some  members  of  this  House  may  think  of  me,  no  man 
regrets  it  more  than  I  do — a  bitter  and  angry  feeling  against 
that  class  which  has  for  a  long  period  conducted  the  public 
affairs  of  this  country.  I  like  political  changes  when  such 
changes  are  made  as  the  result,  not  of  passion,  but  of  dehbera- 
tion  and  reason.  Changes  so  made  are  safe,  but  changes  made 
under  the  influence  of  violent  exaggeration,  or  the  violent 
passions  of  public  meetings,  are  not  changes  usually  approved 
by  this  House  or  advantageous  to  the  country.  I  cannot  but 
notice,  in  speaking  to  gentlemen  who  sit  on  either  side  of  this 
House,  or  in  speaking  to  anyone  I  meet  between  this  House 
and  any  of  those  localities  we  frequent  when  this  House  is  up 
— I  cannot,  I  say,  but  notice  that  an  uneasy  feehng  exists  as 
to  the  news  which  may  arrive  by  the  very  next  mail  from  the 
East.  I  do  not  suppose  that  your  troops  are  to  be  beaten  in 
actual  conflict  with  the  foe,  or  that  they  will  be  driven  into  the 
sea  ;  but  I  am  certain  that  many  homes  in  England  in  which 
there  now  exists  a  fond  hope  that  the  distant  one  may  return 
— many  such  homes  may  be  rendered  desolate  when  the  next 
mail  shall  arrive.  The  angel  of  death  has  been  abroad  through- 
out the  land  ;  you  may  almost  hear  the  beating  of  his  wings. 
There  is  no  one,  as  when  the  first-bom  was  slain  of  old,  to 
sprinkle  with  blood  the  lintel  and  the  two  side-posts  of  our 
doors,  that  he  may  spare  and  pass  on  ;  he  takes  his  victims 
from  the  castle  of  the  noble,  the  mansion  of  the  wealthy,  and 
the  cottage  of  the  poor  and  the  lowly,  and  it  is  on  behalf  of 
all  these  classes  that  I  make  this  solemn  appeal. 

24— (2170) 


370  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

I  tell  the  noble  Lord,  that  if  he  be  ready  honestly  and  frankly 
to  endeavour,  by  the  negotiations  about  to  be  opened  at 
Vienna,  to  put  an  end  to  this  war,  no  word  of  mine,  no  vote  of 
mine,  will  be  given  to  shake  his  power  for  one  single  moment, 
or  to  change  his  position  in  this  House.  I  am  sure  that  the 
noble  Lord  is  not  inaccessible  to  appeals  made  to  him  from 
honest  motives  and  with  no  unfriendly  feeling.  The  noble 
Lord  has  been  for  more  than  forty  years  a  member  of  this 
House.  Before  I  was  born,  he  sat  upon  the  Treasury  bench, 
and  he  has  spent  his  life  in  the  service  of  his  country.  He  is 
no  longer  young,  and  his  life  has  extended  almost  to  the  term 
allotted  to  man.  I  would  ask,  I  would  entreat  the  noble  Lord 
to  take  a  course  which,  when  he  looks  back  upon  his  whole 
political  career — whatever  he  may  therein  find  to  be  pleased 
with,  whatever  to  regret — cannot  but  be  a  source  of  gratifica- 
tion to  him.  By  adopting  that  course  he  would  have  the 
satisfaction  of  reflecting  that,  having  obtained  the  object  of 
his  laudable  ambition — having  become  the  foremost  subject 
of  the  Crown,  the  director  of,  it  may  be,  the  destinies  of  his 
country,  and  the  presiding  genius  in  her  Councils — he  had 
achieved  a  still  higher  and  nobler  ambition  ;  that  he  had 
returned  the  sword  to  the  scabbard — that  at  his  word  torrents 
of  blood  had  ceased  to  flow — that  he  had  restored  tranquillity 
to  Europe,  and  saved  this  country  from  the  indescribable 
calamities  of  war. 

Tax  Bills 

Power  of  the  House  of  Lords 
House  of  Commons,  July  6th,  1860 

I  CANNOT  help  being  struck  with  an  inconsistency  in  the 
right  hon.  gentleman  (Mr.  Horsman)  who  has  just  resumed  his 
seat.  I  am  surprised  that  he  has  not  concluded  by  moving 
that  certain  words  in  the  first  Resolution  should  be  omitted, 
and  in  point  of  fact  that  the  declaration  which  the  House  is 
about  to  make  should  be  reversed.  That  would  be  in  accord- 
ance with  the  speech  of  the  right  hon,  gentleman,  and  with  the 
sentiments  which  many  members  opposite  have  most  vocifer- 
ously cheered.  I  confess  I  do  not  know  what  a  number  of 
hon.  gentlemen  opposite  thought  of  the  statements  of  the  right 
hon.  gentleman  about  the  headlong,  precipitate,  and  reckless 


BRIGHT  371 

Budget  of  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  because  I  think 
there  were  some  fifty  of  them  who  were  more  enthusiastic 
supporters  of  that  Budget  than  a  great  number  of  the  members 
on  this  side  of  the  House. 

I  shall  not  follow  the  right  hon.  gentleman  in  his  endeavours 
to  support  his  theories  with  regard  to  the  extreme  value  of  the 
House  of  Lords,  nor  shall  I  attempt  to  controvert  them, 
because,  in  reality,  that  is  not  the  question  which  is  before  the 
House.  But,  if  the  House  will  permit  me,  I  will  endeavour 
to  keep  as  close  to  the  question  as  I  can,  and  I  will  state  the 
gi'ounds  on  which  I  am  not  satisfied  with  the  course  which  this 
House  is  invited  to  take.  I  will  not  attack  the  Resolutions  of 
the  noble  Lord,  and  I  will  not  defend  them,  for  I  am  not 
responsible  for  them.  They  appear  to  me  unworthy  of  the 
occasion  which  is  before  us.  I  think  they  bear  marks  of  having 
been  prepared  by  more  than  one  hand,  and  if  they  pass,  and 
constitute  the  sole  expression  of  our  mind  on  this  occasion, 
posterity  will  hardly  fail  to  pronoimce  them  the  Resolutions 
of  a  somewhat  degenerate  House  of  Commons.  The  first 
Resolution  is  a  very  good  one,  but  it  is  very  old.  It  is  none  the 
worse  for  that,  and  I  am  glad  the  noble  Viscount  did  not  think 
it  necessary  to  endeavour  to  amend  it.  The  other  two  Resolu- 
tions are,  to  my  mind,  somewhat  ambiguous  and  feeble,  and 
are  not  in  their  expression  of  what  I  beUeve  is  constitutional 
usage,  any  more  than  as  examples  of  composition  in  the 
Enghsh  language,  to  be  compared  to  the  first  and  oldest. 

Last  night  we  had  two  speeches  from  that  side  of  the  House 
after  long  silence — speeches  which,  I  confess,  I  heard  with  some 
surprise  and  with  some  pain.  They  appeared  to  me  marked 
— to  use  a  favourite  phrase  of  the  right  hon.  gentlemen  below 
me — by  great  recklessness,  and,  if  I  may  so  speak,  with  great 
levity.  Whatever  may  be  the  opinion  of  hon.  members  on 
this  question,  it  is  not  one  to  be  treated  in  that  manner.  It  is 
a  serious  question — whether  the  powers  of  this  House  have 
been  infringed  or  not,  and  whether  the  other  House  of  Parlia- 
ment shall  hereafter  exercise  powers  which  it  has  not  heretofore 
exercised.  I  confess  I  was  compelled  to  think  of  the  truth 
we  learn  from  history,  that  there  is  no  greater  sign  of  the 
decadence  of  a  people  than  when  we  find  the  leaders  of  parties 
and  eminent  statesmen  treating  great  questions  as  if  they  were 
not  great,  and  solemn  realities  as  if  they  were  not  real  at  all. 


372  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

I  think  I  could  observe  in  those  speeches  the  triumph  of  men 
who  had  found  an  advocate  in  the  Prime  Minister,  whom  they 
expected  to  meet  as  an  opponent,  and  who  were  dehghted 
that,  acting  with  their  confederates  in  the  other  House  of 
Pariiament,  they  were  Ukely  to  obtain  a  signal  party  advantage. 

Is  there  anybody  who  has  denied  in  point  blank  terms, 
except  the  right  hon.  gentleman,  that  the  House  of  Lords,  in 
the  course  it  has  taken,  has  violated — I  will  not  say  the  privi- 
leges of  this  House,  for  privilege  is  a  word  not  easily  defined — 
but  has  broken  in  upon  the  usages  of  many  centuries  old — " 
usages  which  our  predecessors  in  this  House  have  acknowledged 
to  be  of  the  utmost  importance  to  our  own  powers  and  to  the 
liberties  of  those  whom  we  represent  ?  If  there  was  nothing 
wrong,  then  why  was  there  a  committee?  The  right 
hon.  gentleman,  the  member  for  Bucks,  neglected  to  answer 
that  question.  He  made  no  opposition  at  the  time  ;  but 
three  weeks  afterwards  he  thinks  that  it  would  have 
been  better  if  the  committee  had  not  been  appointed. 
I  will,  however,  undertake  to  affirm  that,  when  the  noble 
Viscount  proposed  that  committee,  every  member  of  this 
House  thought  the  proposition  a  reasonable  one.  Why  did 
we  ransack  the  journals  unless  something  had  happened  which 
jarred  upon  every  man's  sense  of  the  rights  and  privileges  of 
this  House  and  the  usages  of  the  House  of  Lords  ?  And  why, 
having  this  committee,  and  instituting  these  researches,  have 
we  these  Resolutions  moved,  not  by  a  young,  inexperienced, 
and  unknown  member — if  any  such  there  be  in  the  House  of 
Commons — but  by  one  of  the  oldest  members  of  this  House, 
one  of  the  ablest  statesmen  of  the  day,  and  at  this  moment  the 
chief  Minister  of  the  Crown  ?  Surely  everyone  will  admit  that 
the  circumstances  were  such  as  to  justify  the  course  that  was 
taken  in  appointing  the  committee. 

Then  I  have  another  reason  to  give  to  hon.  gentlemen 
opposite,  notwithstanding  their  spasmodic  cheering — I  do  not 
use  the  word  offensively — why  we  should  have  these  very 
Resolutions  which  you  are  about  to  agree  to,  which  the  right 
hon.  gentleman,  the  member  for  Bucks,  as  far  as  I  could  under- 
stand, entirely  approves,  and  which  you  all  feel  delighted 
should  be  proposed  by  the  noble  Viscount,  because  they  relieve 
you  from  a  considerable  difficulty.  I  say  that  these  Resolutions 
are  a  proof  that  the  course  which  has  been  taken  by  the  other 


BRIGHT  373 

House  has  been  unusual,  if  not  wrong  ;  because  the  Resolu- 
tions by  implication  condemn  what  the  Lords  have  done,  and 
although  they  do  not  revoke  the  Act,  or  pledge  this  House  to 
any  particular  course,  yet,  when  those  Resolutions  come  to  be 
considered,  it  will  never  be  denied  that  the  House  of  Commons 
does  by  them  express  a  unanimous  opinion  that  the  course 
which  has  been  taken  by  the  other  House  is  contrary  to  usage, 
and  is  calculated  to  excite  the  jealousy  and  alarm  of  the 
members  of  this  House. 

I  have  been  a  member  of  that  committee,  and  the  right  hon. 
gentleman,  the  member  for  the  University  of  Cambridge,  knows 
my  opinion  of  the  committee  and  its  labours.  I  think  that 
committee  fell  wonderfully  below  its  duties — that  the  course 
which  it  pursued  was  poor  and  spiritless  ;  and  at  a  future  time 
when  the  course  it  has  taken  is  contrasted  with  the  course 
taken  by  the  House  of  Commons  on  previous  occasions,  it  will 
be  justly  said  that  there  has  been  a  real  and  melancholy 
declension  in  the  spirit  of  this  House.  That  which  I  complain 
of  in  the  proceedings  of  the  committee,  I  also  complain  of  in 
respect  to  the  manner  in  which  some  hon.  members  have 
discussed  this  question.  Half  of  the  committee  appeared  to 
me  to  go  into  that  committee  as  much  the  advocates  of  the 
House  of  Lords  as  of  the  House  of  Commons,  and  I  find^that 
some  members  of  this  House  are  of  the  same  character. 
Speeches  have  been  delivered  here  that  very  few  members 
of  the  House  of  Lords  would  make  on  this  question,  and 
I  will  undertake  to  say  that  not  one  member  of  that  House, 
who  is  known  to  the  public  by  his  political  influence,  legal 
knowledge,  high  character,  or  extensive  learning,  would 
dare  to  make  the  speech  that  has  been  made  to-night  by 
the  right  hon.  gentleman,  the  member  for  Stroud.  I  went 
into  the  committee  with  the  utmost  frankness  in  order  that 
I  might  ascertain,  not  altogether  in  what  manner  the  Lords 
had  asserted  their  privileges,  but  what  our  predecessors 
had  done  with  regard  to  theirs.  We  have  no  right  to  let  go 
one  single  particle  of  the  privileges  and  powers  which  the 
House  of  Commons  have  gained  in  past  times  ;  and  I  took  it  for 
granted  that  if  I  examined  for  some  centuries  back  the  course 
which  the  House  of  Commons  had  pursued — if  I  read  their 
Resolutions,  if  I  read  the  reasons  adduced  at  their  conferences, 
if  I  observed  the  Acts  which  they  passed,  and  the  result  of  the 


374  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

discussions  between  the  two  Houses — we  should  be  justified 
in  concluding  that  we  have  rights  to  maintain  for  which  our 
predecessors  have  contended. 

Now,  several  Members,  following  the  example  of  the  com- 
mittee, have  taken  the  House  back  for  a  long  period  of  time. 
I  will  not  go  into  those  precedents  with  the  view  of  contending 
whether  they  do  or  do  not  refer  to  this  particular  case  ;  but 
the  House  will  permit  me  to  mention  two  or  three  facts  which 
I  brought  out  of  the  Journals,  and  which  convinced  me  that 
we  should  not  take  a  sufficiently  bold  or  decided  course  if  we 
merely  agree  to  the  Resolutions  of  the  noble  Viscount.  I  will 
first  refer  to  that  very  case  which  the  right  hon.  gentleman, 
the  member  for  the  University  of  Cambridge,  and  myself  fixed 
upon  as  the  starting  point  of  our  precedents — the  precedents 
of  the  year  1407  ;  and  I  trust  every  hon.  member  has  read  it, 
either  in  the  translation,  or  in  the  old  Norman-French.  It  is 
worth  reading,  for  it  is  a  very  curious  case,  and  there  is  no 
other  so  like  the  recent  action  of  the  House  of  Lords  as  that 
which  took  place  453  years  ago  ;  for  the  House  of  Lords  then 
proposed  to  continue  a  tax  to  which  the  Commons  had  not 
assented,  and  the  House  of  Commons  were  greatly  disturbed 
at  the  House  of  Lords  prolonging  a  tax  to  which  the  House  of 
Commons  had  not  given  its  assent.  We  then  made  a  great 
leap,  and  from  the  year  1407  came  down  to  the  year  1628. 
We  then  found  the  House  of  Commons  insisting  upon  the 
initiation  of  Bills  of  Supply.  They  would  not  permit  the  name 
of  the  Lords  to  be  inserted  in  the  preamble  of  a  Bill  of  Supply, 
neither  would  they  agree  to  the  compromise  that  neither  the 
Lords  nor  the  Commons  should  be  introduced,  but  that  the 
High  Court  of  Parliament  should  be  mentioned.  The  House 
of  Commons  refused  to  pass  the  Bill  in  that  shape,  and  sub- 
mitted that  the  Commons  should  be  named  alone  in  the  grant. 
This  was  done,  and  that  has  been  the  practice  ever  since  in  the 
preamble  of  Supply  Bills. 

Then  we  come  to  1640,  when  the  House  of  Lords  were  much 
more  modest  than  they  ought  to  have  been,  according  to  the 
right  hon.  gentleman,  who  maintains  that  they  ought  to  check, 
alter,  amend,  improve,  and  if  necessary  overthrow,  all  the 
financial  arrangements  of  the  year  that  this  House  may  agree 
to.  The  Declaration  of  1640  sets  forth  that  the  Lords  stated 
at  the  Conference  that  : 


BRIGHT  375 

"  My  Lords  would  not  meddle  with  matters  of  subsidy,  which  belong 
naturally  and  properly  to  you — no,  not  to  give  you  advice  therein, 
but  have  utterly  declined  it." 

Then  the  House  of  Lords,  in  1640,  we  are  asked  to  suppose, 
knew  nothing  of  their  constitutional  rights,  and  the  House  of 
Commons  of  that  day  were  less  able  than  they  are  at  present 
to  judge  of  what  is  necessary  for  the  performance  of  their 
proper  functions  in  the  State,  and  for  the  liberties  of  those 
whom  they  represent.  Mr.  Pym  told  their  Lordships  that 
they  had  not  only  meddled  with  matters  of  Supply,  but  that 
they  had 

"  Both  concluded  the  matter  and  order  of  proceeding,  which  the 
House  of  Commons  takes  to  be  a  breach  of  their  privilege,  for  which  I 
was  commanded  to  desire  reparation  from  your  Lordships." 

The  Lords  made  reparation  by  declaring  that  they  did  not 
know  they  were  breaking  a  right  of  the  Commons  in  merely 
suggesting  that  Supply  should  have  precedence  over  the 
consideration  of  grievances.  I  am  not  sure  that  even  now, 
notwithstanding  what  has  been  said,  fhe  House  of  Lords  have 
ever  admitted  by  any  resolution  that  they  have  not  the  power 
to  originate  Supplies.  They  have  not  the  power,  of  course, 
to  carry  such  a  Bill,  because  if  it  came  to  this  House  it  would 
fall  down  dead,  unless  that  unhappy  time  should  come  when 
the  theories  of  the  right  hon.  gentleman,  the  member  for 
Stroud,   are  carried  out. 

Then  comes  the  question  of  Amendments.  The  Lords 
endeavoured  to  amend  a  Bill  of  Supply.  I  do  not  wonder  that 
they  did  so,  because  the  theories  of  the  right  hon.  gentleman 
must  have  been  palatable  to  a  good  many  of  them.  In  1671 
it  was  proposed  not  to  continue  a  tax,  but  to  reduce  a  tax — 
the  duty  on  white  sugar.  The  Lords  proposed  to  reduce  the 
duty  from  one  penny  per  pound  to  five-eighths  of  a  penny, 
and  the  House  of  Commons  came  to  a  Resolution  that  "  in 
cdl  aids  given  to  the  King  by  the  Commons  the  rate  or  tax 
ought  not  to  be  altered  by  the  Lords."  A  conference  was  held 
with  the  House  of  Lords,  and  the  House  of  Commons  then 
declared  that  the  right  which  they  claimed  "  was  a  funda- 
mental right,  both  as  to  the  matter,  the  measure,  and  the  time." 
Then,  what  followed  in  the  House  of  Lords  ?  They  replied 
by  the  very  same  Resolution,  which  had  been  passed  in  a 
contrary  sense  by  this  House.     They  said,  with  reason,  "  for 


376  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

if  they  cannot  amend,  or  abate,  or  revise  a  Bill  in  Parliament  " 
— they  said  this,  mind,  in  answer  to  the  Commons,  who 
declared  that  they  could  not  amend,  but  might  negative  the 
whole — they  said,  **  if  we  cannot  amend,  or  abate,  or  alter  in 
part,  by  what  consequence  of  reason  can  we  enjoy  the  liberty 
to  reject  the  whole  ?  " 

The  right  hon.  gentleman,  the  member  for  the  University 
of  Dublin,  last  night  showed  himself  a  most  unhappy  critic. 
He  called  our  attention  to  the  condition  of  things  in  the  United 
States.  In  fact,  he  proved  himself — only  he  did  not  exactly 
understand  what  he  was  saying — he  showed  himself  to  be 
strongly  in  favour  of  Americanizing  our  institutions  in  one 
respect.  He  said  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  has  the 
power  not  only  of  rejecting,  but  of  amending — which  is  quite 
true.  When  the  founders  of  the  American  Republic  were 
binding  together  the  thirteen  sovereign  States  in  one  great — 
and  to  be  still  greater — combination,  they  looked  back  naturally 
to  the  practice  of  the  country  from  which  they  were  separating, 
to  determine,  or  at  least  to  learn,  something  from  our  Parlia- 
mentary practice.  They  found  that  in  England  the  Lords 
could  not  begin  Money  Bills,  could  not  alter  or  amend  them  ; 
but  that  theoretically — because  the  matter  had  never  been 
decided — theoretically  they  had  power  to  reject.  But,  then, 
what  was  the  conclusion  which  they  came  to  ?  They  said  the 
very  same  thing  that  the  House  of  Lords  had  said  in  the  year 
1671 — **  It  is  perfectly  childish  to  say  that  the  House  of  Lords 
cannot  alter,  abate,  or  increase,  but  yet  shall  be  able  to  reject." 
They  knew  well,  that,  although  there  was  that  theoretical  right 
in  England,  yet,  practically,  it  had  never  been  enforced,  and 
they  came  to  the  conclusion  that  if  they  should  give  to  their 
own  Senate  power  to  reject,  it  would  be  necessary  also  to  give 
them  the  power  to  amend  ;  and  at  this  very  moment  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States  might,  not  with  that  sort  of  responsibility 
of  which  the  right  hon.  gentleman  is  so  fond,  but  with  a  real 
responsibility,  every  two  members  being  the  representatives 
of  a  particular  Sovereign  State — that  elected  Senate  does 
amend,  and  does  reject,  and  does  deal  with  finance  in  a  manner 
which  has  never  been  permitted,  nor  even  proposed  in  this 
country,  except  in  the  extraordinary  speech  to  which  we  have 
just  listened. 

Seven  years  after  the  last  date  to  which  I  have  referred 


BRIGHT  377 

there  arose  another  contest,  in  the  course  of  which  a  Resolution 
was  passed.  It  is  the  strongest  and  most  comprehensive 
Resolution  that  the  House  of  Commons  has  ever  passed  in 
relation  to  this  subject.  I  will  not  go  into  any  elaborate 
argument  upon  it,  but  I  will  just  read  it,  because  it  makes  the 
arguments  I  am  about  to  bring  before  the  House  more  con- 
tinuous and  clear.  The  House  of  Commons  declared  this  ; 
and  it  was  not  one  of  those  sudden  acts  which  the  House  of 
Commons  is  now  alleged  to  continually  commit ;  but  it  was  a 
Resolution  drawn  up  by  a  committee  specially  appointed  for 
that  purpose — a  Resolution  specially  considered  and  solemnly 
entered  in  the  Journals  of  the  House.     It  was  in  these  words  : 

"  All  Aids  and  Supplies,  and  Aids  to  His  Majesty  from  Parliament, 
are  the  sole  gifts  of  the  Commons,  and  all  Bills  for  granting  such  Aids 
and  Supplies  are  to  begin  with  the  Commons  ;  and  it  is  the  undoubted 
and  sole  right  of  the  Commons  to  direct,  limit,  and  appoint  in  such  Bills 
the  ends,  purposes,  considerations,  limitations,  and  qualifications  of 
such  grants,  which  ought  not  to  be  changed  or  altered  by  the  House 
of  Lords." 

At  this  time,  when  the  Lords  had  never  pretended  to  reject 
a  Bill,  it  is  probable  that  such  a  proposition  was  a  thing  that 
never  entered  into  the  head  of  any  member  of  the  House  of 
Peers.  I  will  undertake  to  say  it  would  be  difficult  for  any 
member  of  this  House  to  draw  up  a  Resolution  more  compre- 
hensive and  conclusive  as  to  the  absolute  control  of  the  House 
of  Commons  than  that  of  the  year  1678,  which  I  have  just  now 
read. 

Shortly  afterwards,  in  the  year  1691,  there  is  another  Resolu- 
tion which  goes  minutely  into  the  case  before  the  House,  and 
I  beg  the  right  hon.  gentleman's  attention  to  it.  In  that  year 
a  bill  was  passed  for  appointing  Commissioners  to  Examine 
the  Public  Accounts  of  the  Kingdom.  The  House  of  Lords 
amended,  the  House  of  Commons  dissented  ;  and  among  the 
reasons  which  the  House  of  Commons  gave  was  this — "  That 
in  aids,  supplies,  and  grants,  the  Commons  only  do  judge  of 
the  necessities  of  the  Crown."  What  are  we  asked  now  ?  We 
are  asked  to  take  into  partnership  another  judge  of  the  neces- 
sities of  the  Crown.  The  House  of  Commons  which  for  five 
hundred  years,  which  since  the  Revolution  at  least,  has  never 
withheld  adequate  Supplies  from  the  Crown,  is  now  to  be 
depreciated  and  defamed,  as  if  it  had  been  guilty  of  scantily 


378  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

supplying  the  wants  of  the  Crown,  and  the  House  of  Lords  is 
to  be  asked  to  do  that  which  the  House  of  Commons  alone  did 
in  1691,  namely,  to  judge  of  the  necessities  of  the  Crown,  and 
to  make  the  Supply  greater  than  that  which  the  House  of  Com- 
mons have  believed  to  be  sufficient.  And,  referring  to  that 
famous  record  of  Henry  the  Fourth,  we  find  it  stated  that 
**  all  grants  and  aids  are  made  by  the  Commons,  and  are  only 
assented  to  by  the  Lords." 

A  few  years  afterwards,  our  forefathers  were  concerned  in  a 
question  about  the  paper  duties,  just  as  we  are  at  this  time  ; 
only  they  managed  it  better  than  we  are  doing  now.  In  the 
year  1699  they  declared  : 

"  It  is  an  undoubted  right  and  privilege  of  the  Commons,  that  such 
aids  are  to  be  given  by  such  methods,  and  with  such  provisions,  as  the 
Commons  only  shall  think  proper." 

But  now  we  are  told  that  aids  and  provisions  for  the  Crown 
are  to  be  raised  by  methods,  not  which  the  Commons  think 
proper,  but  which  the  Lords  think  proper  in  opposition  to  the 
Commons. 

The  House  will  perceive  that  I  am  very  hoarse,  and  I  am 
sorry  to  trouble  them  with  other  cases.  In  the  year  1700  there 
was  another  question  raised  between  the  two  Houses  :  and  the 
Commons  told  the  Lords  that  they  could  not  agree  with  their 
Amendment,  and  they  again  affirmed  that  : 

"  All  the  Aids  and  Supplies  granted  to  his  Majesty  in  Parliament 
are  the  sole  and  entire  gift  of  the  Commons  ;  and  that  it  is  the  sole 
and  undoubted  right  of  the  Commons  to  direct,  limit,  and  appoint  the 
ends,  purposes,  considerations,  limitations,  and  qualifications  of  such 
grants." 

And  in  1702  there  was  another  statement  that  the  **  granting 
and  disposing  of  all  public  moneys  is  the  undoubted  right  of 
the  Commons  alone." 

In  the  year  1719  they  object  to  a  clause  which  the  Lords 
had  introduced  ;  on  the  ground  that  it  levied  a  new  subsidy 
not  granted  by  the  Commons,  "  which  is  the  undoubted  and 
sole  right  of  the  Commons  to  grant,  and  from  which  they  will 
never  depart."  I  want  to  ask  the  House,  or  any  reasonable 
man,  if  we  were  discussing  this  question  between  the  American 
Senate  and  the  House  of  Representatives,  or  between  the  two 
Chambers  of  any  foreign  country,  to  what  conclusion  would 


BRIGHT  379 

each  one  of  us  necessarily  come  as  to  the  purpose  and  object 
of  all  these  declarations,  to  which  I  have  referred,  and  which 
are  only  a  portion  of  those  which  are  to  be  found  in  the  Journals 
of  this  House  for  the  last  five  hundred  years  ?  Would  you  say 
that  they  add  to  the  conclusion  that  the  House  of  Lords  could 
throw  out  a  Bill  repealing  a  tax  of  the  value  and  magnitude  of 
£1,300,000  a  year  ?  Would  you  say  that  if  they  could  not 
abate  a  tax,  or  continue  a  tax,  or  Umit  a  tax,  or  dispose  of  a 
tax,  or  control  in  any  way  a  tax,  or  even  give  advice  to  the 
Commons  in  respect  of  a  tax — could  you  say  that  notwith- 
standing all  that,  which  is  clear  and  undeniable,  they  could, 
in  the  face  of  this  House,  reject  a  Bill  which  repealed  a  tax  of 
£1,300,000  a  year,  without  violating  Parhamentary  usage, 
and  running  contrary  to  all  the  declarations  of  this  House 
for  many  centuries  ?  I  think — and  I  put  it  before  the  Com- 
mittee— and  if  any  hon.  gentleman  has  done  me  the  honour 
to  read  the  draft  Report  which  I  prepared,  he  will  see  that  I 
put  before  the  Committee  this  long  string  of  Cases  and  Resolu- 
tions, and  Declarations,  couched  in  language  not  ambiguous, 
not  feeble,  but  in  language  clear  and  forcible,  which  could  not 
be  mistaken  ;  and  I  then  wished  to  ask  the  Committee — as  I 
now  ask  the  House — what  was  the  end  and  object  which  the 
House  of  Commons  had  in  view  in  these  repeated  declarations 
of  their  rights  and  opinions  touching  the  granting  of  Supplies, 
and  the  imposition  of  taxes  upon  the  people  ?  I  should  say 
that  it  was  this — they  confirm  and  consecrate  a  practice  of 
five  hundred  years,  the  principle  which,  till  within  the  last 
hour,  I  thought  every  man  in  England  admitted — the  funda- 
mental and  unchangeable  principle  of  the  Government  and 
Constitution  of  the  English  people,  that  taxation  and 
representation  are  inseparable  in  this  Kingdom. 

Let  us  look  and  see  how  these  Declarations  and  Resolutions 
apply  to  this  case.  We  are  now  in  the  year  1860,  and  for  a 
long  period  we  have  had  no  question  of  importance  of  this 
nature  ;  and  we  begin  to  fancy  that,  after  all,  there  is  no  great 
importance  in  such  a  question.  We  have  long  had  our  personal 
liberties  in  this  country  ;  longer  almost,  in  some  classes  of 
society,  than  history  can  tell ;  but  people  perhaps  fancy  that 
their  personal  liberty  cannot  be  endangered  by  this  matter. 
No  ;  in  this  case  we  were  so  confident  of  our  right  and  our  power 
that  we  could  not  comprehend  any  infringement  of  our  rights. 


380  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

These  paper-duties,  I  believe  were  granted  in  the  reign  of 
Queen  Anne  ;  partly  for  revenue,  and  partly  for  other  pur- 
poses ;  which  purposes,  I  presume,  had  some  effect  in  procuring 
the  rej  ection  of  this  Bill  by  the  Lords.  It  was  a  tax  to  prevent 
the  publication  and  spread  of  political  information.  I  see 
an  hon.  gentleman  up  there  in  the  gallery  who  is  very  much 
astonished  at  this  ;  but  he  is  not  aware,  probably,  that  all 
which  I  have  stated  is,  if  I  am  not  misinformed,  in  the  Pre- 
amble of  the  Bill.  Public  opinion  in  those  days  allowed  of 
very  bad  reasons  being  given.  They  can  be  acted  on  now 
even  when  they  are  not  given.  From  the  time  of  Queen  Anne, 
to  the  present  time,  this  paper-duty  has  crippled  a  very 
important  industry.  It  has  taxed  aU  the  trades  which  required 
large  quantities  of  paper — such  as  those  of  Manchester,  of 
Sheffield,  of  Nottingham,  of  Birmingham,  and  elsewhere ; 
but  more  than  that,  it  has  very  successfully  done  what  Queen 
Anne's  ministers  wanted  ;  it  has  threatened,  and,  to  a  large 
extent,  it  has  strangled  the  press  of  this  country.  Within  the 
last  thirty  years — and  hon.  members  on  the  opposite  side  of 
the  House  I  presume  by  this  time  are  becoming  conscious  of  it 
— new  principles  have  become  established  in  this  country  with 
regard  to  taxation  on  industry.  New  and  wiser  principles 
have  been  adopted,  and  not  only  adopted  but  established  ; 
and  there  are  some  very  powerful  defenders  of  these  principles, 
whom  I  have  the  pleasure  to  see  opposite  me  to-night. 

The  right  hon.  gentleman,  the  member  for  Stroud,  has  pro- 
ceeded on  the  old  mode  of  discussion  when  arguments  are 
not  plentiful  and  facts  are  entirely  wanting.  He  has  raised 
his  old  friend,  the  hobgoblin  argument,  and  has  tried  to  show 
us  that  some  frightful  calamity  must  come  upon  us  if  this 
paper-duty  be  repealed  :  it  is  but  a  million-and-a-quarter. 
Does  any  hon.  gentleman  believe  that  our  prosperity  or  suc- 
cess— or  that  any  vast  interest  of  this  country — can  possibly 
depend  on  a  million,  more  or  less,  in  the  general  revenue  of  the 
empire  ?  A  million  is  a  million.  ["  Hear."]  I  am  glad  to 
have  said  something  in  which  the  hon.  gentleman,  the  member 
for  Leicestershire,  can  coincide.  There  is  no  member  who  has 
laid  more  stress  on  the  importance  of  a  million  in  the  taxation 
of  the  people  than  I  have  done  ;  it  is  the  tax  of  many  villages, 
of  many  towns  ;  and  it  makes  the  difference  sometimes  between 
comfort  and  desolation  ;    and  therefore  I  am  the  last  person 


BRIGHT  381 

in  the  world  who  would  undervalue  the  amount  of  a  miUion 
of  the  pubhc  revenue.  But  still  I  should  be  only  making 
myself  foolish,  if  I  were  to  say  that  a  million  sterUng — whether 
our  taxation  be  £50,000,000  cLS  it  was  twenty  years  ago,  or 
£70,000,000  as  it  is  now — was  of  the  gigantic  importance 
attributed  to  it  by  the  right  hon.  gentleman  ;  for  on  this 
miUion,  which  we  had  provided  a  substitute  for,  before  we 
relieve  the  people  of  that  miUion,  he  founds  his  argument  as 
to  our  recklessness,  precipitancy,  and  madness,  and  drunken- 
ness— I  think  he  added — at  least  it  was  to  be  inferred  from 
what  he  said  ;  for  he  made  use  of  the  converse,  and  spoke  of 
sobriety. 

The  noble  Lord,  the  member  for  the  City  of  London,  in  his 
speech  last  night  reviewed  the  course  of  events,  and  told  us 
what  we  all  knew,  that  within  the  recollection,  I  suppose,  of 
almost  the  youngest  member  of  the  House,  there  have  been 
Excise  duties  on  many  other  articles  ;  I  think,  at  one  time,  on 
candles  ;  certainly  at  a  later  period  on  leather ;  I  believe, 
since  I  came  into  this  House,  on  glass  ;  and,  still  more  recently, 
on  soap.  Well,  all  these  Excise  duties  have  been  abolished. 
Can  you  find  a  man,  from  John  o'Groat's  to  the  Land's  End, 
who  will  not  tell  you  that  these  reckless  principles,  applied  to 
the  repeal  of  these  Excise  duties,  were  not  of  essential  benefit, 
not  only  to  the  particular  trades  most  interested,  but  to  the 
great  mass  of  the  people,  and  to  the  industry  by  which  your 
people  hve  ? 

Well,  then,  having  followed  for  many  years  a  course  so 
beneficial,  we  come  at  length,  in  the  year  1860,  to  the  repeal  of 
the  paper-duty,  which  was  promised  by  the  House  ;  which 
was  recommended  by  the  Government  officers  ;  which  was 
called  for  by  innumerable  petitions ;  which  was  hoped  for, 
I  believe,  by  every  person  in  the  country  who  took  an  intelli- 
gent view  of  what  was  essential  to  aid  the  efforts  which  Govern- 
ment are  making,  by  liberal  grants  every  year,  to  promote  the 
instruction  of  the  people.  This  tax  was  £1,300,000.  It  was 
a  question  whether  sugar  should  be  relieved  to  the  extent  of  a 
million,  tea  of  a  million,  or  paper  of  a  miUion  :  I  am  speaking 
in  round  numbers.  The  hon.  gentleman,  not  caring  in  the 
least  about  this  reckless  deficit,  would  certainly  have  preferred 
sugar  or  tea  ;  but  surely,  as  regards  the  question  of  the  Sup- 
phes  for  the  year,  it  was  equally  a  matter  of  indifference  to 


382  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  whether  the  duty  were  taken 
off  tea,  or  sugar,  or  paper.  But  the  conclusion  to  which  he 
necessarily  came  was,  that  while  in  the  cases  of  tea  and  sugar 
the  rehef  was  to  the  extent  of  a  milhon  of  taxation,  in  the  case 
of  paper  it  was  not  only  a  relief  to  that  amount  in  money,  but 
it  was  a  relief  to  a  great  industry,  and  to  several  other  indus- 
tries, whose  prosperity  must  depend  on  an  abundant  and  cheap 
supply  of  paper.  I  speak  with  some  knowledge  of  the  subject, 
and  I  have  not  the  least  doubt  that  the  abolition  of  the  paper- 
duty  was  a  positive  rehef  to  the  whole  people  of  the  country 
equal  to  double  the  relief  which  would  have  been  afforded  by  a 
reduction  equal  in  amount  to  the  duty  on  the  articles  of  tea 
and  sugar. 

But  the  question  may  be  still  more  narrowed  ;  and  I  beg  the 
right  hon.  gentleman's  particular  attention — for  it  appears 
now  that  his  hostility  to  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer 
renders  him  unable  to  understand  the  multiplication  table,  or 
anything  else  that  is  plain.  If  the  paper  duty  expired  on  the 
15th  of  August,  the  reduction  of  revenue  between  that  time 
and  the  end  of  the  financial  year  would  probably  not  be  more 
than  £600,000,  but  certainly  would  not  exceed  £700,000.  I 
am  sorry  the  House  did  not  take  more  economical  advice  in 
past  years.  But  we  are  now  come,  according  to  the  right  hon. 
gentleman,  to  this  extremity  of  our  resources,  that  you  cannot 
take  £700,000  this  year  from  an  Excise  which  is  strangling  a 
great  trade,  and  put  an  additional  halfpenny  or  penny  on  the 
income-tax,  without  bringing  about  such  a  frightful  state  of 
things,  that  the  Constitution  itself  and  the  usages  of  Parha- 
ment  must  be  violated,  and  we  must  bring  in  a  foreign  power 
to  check  us  in  our  precipitous,  reckless,  and  headlong  career. 

It  may  be  very  far  from  the  modesty  which  becomes  a  member 
of  this  House,  but  I  confess  I  am  of  opinion  that  the  House  of 
Commons  is  the  best  judge  in  this  country  of  what  is  necessary 
for  the  trade,  and  also  what  is  required  by  the  financial  con- 
dition of  the  country.  First  of  all,  there  are  among  us  a  good 
many  sagacious  men  of  all  sorts.  There  are,  as  I  know,  some 
very  sagacious  landowners  ;  we  found  it  very  hard  to  beat 
them  even  when  they  had  a  very  bad  cause.  We  have  a  very 
sagacious  gentleman  down  here  who  spoke  to-night,  and  who, 
whatever  be  the  question  which  comes  before  us,  always  finds 
some  very  fitting  object  for  his  merciless  and  unscrupulous 


BRIGHT  383 

vituperation.  We  know,  many  of  us  intimately,  all  the  details 
connected  with  these  questions  ;  in  fact,  I  suppose,  there  is 
not  a  trade  in  this  country  of  any  importance  or  note  that 
cannot  find  its  representatives  in  this  House.  For  many 
years  past  we  have  had  the  absolute  control  of  questions  of 
finance,  and  I  undertake  to  declare,  notwithstanding  what  the 
right  hon.  gentleman  has  stated,  that  there  is  not  a  represen- 
tative body  in  the  world  which  during  the  last  twenty  years 
has  done  more  in  the  way  of  financial  and  fiscal  reforms  with 
greater  advantage  to  the  people.  And  yet,  at  the  end  of  that 
period,  when  the  triumphs  of  this  House  are  to  be  found  not 
in  granite  and  bronze  monuments,  but  in  the  added  comforts 
of  the  population,  and  in  the  increased  and  undoubted  loyalty 
of  the  people,  you  are  now,  forsooth,  asked  by  the  right  hon. 
gentleman  to  abdicate  your  functions,  and  to  invite  400 
gentlemen,  who  are  not  traders,  who  have  never  been  financiers, 
who  do  not  possess  means  in  any  degree  equalling  your  own 
of  understanding  the  question — you  are  to  ask  them  to  join 
your  councils,  and  not  only  to  advise,  but  to  check,  and  even 
to  control. 

It  is  one  of  the  points  which  gave  me  most  grief  in  regard 
to  this  question,  that  I  have  seen  the  House  of  Lords  taking, 
of  all  cases,  perhaps  the  worst  that  could  possibly  come  before 
them,  and  inflicting  suddenly,  unexpectedly,  and,  in  my 
opinion,  groundlessly,  most  harsh  and  cruel  treatment  on  all 
the  persons  who  were  interested  directly  in  this  question  of 
the  paper-excise.  We  are  asked  now,  in  terms  not  ambiguous, 
to  overthrow  the  fabric  which  has  grown  up  in  this  country, 
which  has  existed,  and  existed  without  damage,  for  at  least 
500  years.  By  the  report  of  the  right  hon.  gentleman  we  find 
that  as  far  back  as  the  year  1640  the  House  of  Commons  made 
this  declaration,  to  which  I  ask  the  particular  attention  of 
members  of  the  present  House.     They  said  : 

"  We  have  had  urdnterrupted  possession  of  this  privilege  "  [the 
privilege  of  the  undisputed  control  over  the  taxation  and  finances  of 
the  country]  "  ever  since  the  year  1407,  confirmed  by  a  multitude  of 
precedents  both  before  and  after,  not  shaken  by  one  precedent  for 
these  300  years." 

If  that  be  so,  it  carries  us  back  for  a  period  of  520  years  ; 
and  yet  we  are  asked  to-night  in  the  most  unblushing  and  auda- 
cious manner,  to  overthrow  this  magnificent  and  time-honoured 


384  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

fabric,  and  admit  to  powers,  to  which  they  have  hitherto  been 
unaccustomed,  the  hereditary  branch  of  the  Legislature. 

Now,  I  say  that  the  House  of  Lords  in  the  course  they  have 
taken  have  committed  two  offences,  which  I  had  much  rather 
they  had  not  committed,  because  I  am  not  anxious  they  should 
depreciate  themselves  in  the  eyes  of  the  people  of  this  country. 
[A  laugh.]  If  hon.  gentlemen  opposite  were  as  anxious  that 
they  should  continue  limited  to  their  proper  functions,  doing 
all  the  good  that  it  is  possible  for  them  to  do,  and  as  little 
harm  as  possible,  they  would  not  laugh  in  an  apparent  unbelief 
in  what  I  have  just  stated.  I  say  the  House  of  Lords  have  not 
behaved  even  with  fair  honour  towards  the  House  of  Com- 
mons in  this  matter.  Every  man  of  them  who  knew  anything 
about  what  he  was  voting  for  knew  that  the  House  of  Com- 
mons repealed  the  paper-excise,  not  merely  because  it  wished 
to  remit  a  million  of  taxes,  but  because  it  thought  that  to 
strangle  a  great  industry  was  an  injurious  mode  of  raising 
revenue,  and,  therefore,  it  transferred  that  amount  of  taxa- 
tion from  the  paper-excise  to  the  income-tax.  Then,  I  say, 
if  that  were  known  in  the  House  of  Lords,  although  they  might 
have  disapproved  the  change,  and  might  have  thought  it 
better  if  it  had  not  been  made,  it  was  not  an  honourable 
treatment  of  this  House  ;  and  further,  if  they  had  the  power 
which  the  American  Senate  has,  and  which  the  right  honourable 
and  learned  gentleman  wishes  them  to  have,  still  it  would  not 
have  been  fair  to  this  House  to  enact  the  additional  penny  on 
income,  and  to  refuse  to  repeal  the  tax  on  paper.  That  is  a 
question  which  every  man  can  understand  ;  and  I  cannot 
believe  that  there  is  any  member  of  this  House  who  does  not 
comprehend  it  when  put  in  that  shape. 

But  there  is  another  thing  which  the  House  of  Lords  have 
done  wrong.  They  have  trampled  on  the  confidence  and 
taken  advantage  of  the  faith  of  the  Commons.  The  right  hon. 
gentleman  last  night  made  a  very  curious  statement  on  this 
subject,  which,  if  I  were  a  member  of  the  House  of  Lords,  I 
should  be  disposed  to  find  fault  with.  He  said  : — "  Why, 
what  can  you  expect  ?  It  was  the  laches  of  the  House  of 
Commons  that  gave  the  House  of  Lords  the  opportunity  of 
doing  what  they  have  done."  But,  surely,  if  for  500  years  the 
House  of  Lords  has  never  done  this, — if  since  the  Revolution, 
even  with  the  search  into  precedents  made  by  the  Committee, 


BRIGHT  385 

not  a  single  case  which  approaches  this  can  be  discovered, — is 
the  House  of  Commons  blameable  for  thinking  that  it  was  at 
least  dealing  with  a  House  which  would  abide  by  the  usages 
of  the  Constitution,  and  would  not  take  advantage  of  the 
change  which  the  House  of  Commons  made  for  the  public 
interest  in  the  mode  of  imposing  taxation  ?  Instead  of  cer- 
tain taxes  being  imposed  annually,  or  for  short  periods,  by 
which  the  House  held  a  constant  control  over  them,  they  were 
made  permanent.  The  West  India  interest  said  they  did  not 
want  their  trade  to  be  troubled  and  disturbed  every  year  ; 
and  the  sugar  duties  were  made  perpetual.  But  then  are  we 
always  to  treat  the  Lords  as  poUtical  burglars,  and  invent 
bolts,  bars,  locks,  everything  which  may  keep  them  from  a 
possible  encroachment  on  our  rights  ?  Must  we  treat  them  as 
men  who,  if  you  give  them  the  smallest  opportunity,  will  come 
down  upon  you  and  do  that  which  you  wish  them  not  to  do  ? 
If  that  be  so,  you  must  assuredly  take  certain  precautions  to 
prevent  them  from  continuing  such  a  course. 

It  is  said  that  the  Paper  Duty  Abolition  Bill  was  thrown  out 
in  the  Upper  House  by  a  great  majority.  That  is  a  fact  with 
which  we  are  all  well  acquainted.  I  was  talking  recently  to 
a  peer  who  gave  an  explanation  of  this,  which  I  will  venture 
to  repeat.  "  If,"  he  said,  "  the  regular  House  of  Lords,  that 
is  to  say,  the  hundred  members  who  during  the  session  really 
do  transact  the  business,  if  they  only  had  been  in  the  House, 
the  Paper  Duties  Repeal  Bill  would  certainly  have  passed." 
That,  however,  happened  which  we  all  understand,  and  I  have 
no  objection  to  repeat  the  exact  words  used  to  me.  **  About 
two  hundred  members,  who  hardly  ever  come  there,  were  let 
loose  for  the  occasion."  Most  of  them  are  unknown  to  the 
country  as  politicians,  and  they  voted  out  this  Bill  by  a  large 
majority,  with  a  chuckle,  thinking  that  by  doing  so  they  were 
making  a  violent  attack  on  the  ministry,  and  especially  on  the 
Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer.  That  is  a  House,  recollect,  in 
which  three  members  form  a  quorum.  I  sometimes  hear 
complaints  in  this  House  that  ministers  pass  measures  very 
late  at  night,  when,  perhaps,  only  fifty  members  are  present, 
of  whom  thirty  are  connected  with  the  Government ;  but  in 
the  House  of  Lords  three  form  a  quorum.  Proxies  may  be 
used,  too  ;  and  these  three  peers  forming  a  quorum,  with 
proxies  in  their  pockets,  are  to  dispose  of  great  questions 
25— {2170) 


386  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

involving  £70,000,000  of  taxes  raised  from  the  industry  of  the 
people  of  this  country.  At  all  events,  if  the  two  hundred 
peers  who  voted  that  night  choose  to  come  down  on  other 
occasions,  there  is  no  single  measure  of  finance,  however 
liberal  or  however  much  for  the  advantage  of  the  people,  that 
they  would  not  reject,  and  thus  frustrate  the  beneficial 
intentions  of  this  House. 

But  after  all  I  have  said  I  am  going  to  make  this  admission, 
that  the  House  of  Lords  of  course  can  reject  a  Bill,  and  can 
also  initiate  a  Bill  if  they  like.  If  it  were  not  so  late  (and  the 
Lords  like  to  get  away  about  seven) — if  it  were  not  so  late, 
the  Lords  might  to-night  bring  in  a  Bill  levying  a  tax  or  voting 
money  for  the  service  of  the  year,  amd  they  can  also  reject  any 
Bill  you  may  send  up  to  them.  They  are  omnipotent  within 
the  four  walls  of  their  House,  just  as  we  are  within  the  four 
walls  of  this  House.  But  if  they  take  their  course,  one  con- 
trary to  the  general  practice  of  that  House  and  of  Parliament, 
it  becomes  us  to  consider  what  course  we  will  take.  We 
cannot  compel  them  to  make  any  change  ;  but  we  may  our- 
selves take  any  course  that  we  please,  and  we  may  at  least 
offer  them  the  opportunity  of  altering  the  course  they  have 
taken. 

My  opinion  is  that  it  would  have  been  consonant  with  the 
dignity  of  this  House,  wholly  apart  from  the  question  of 
;f  1,300,000  a  year,  or  of  ;f 700,000,  the  sum  for  this  year,  to  have 
passed  another  Bill  to  repeal  the  paper-duty.  If  that  had  been 
a  duty  which  I  considered  not  the  best  to  repeal,  I  still  should 
have  laid  aside  all  partiality  for  a  particular  tax.  There  can 
be  nothing  more  perilous  to  the  country,  or  more  fatal  to  the 
future  character  of  this  House,  than  that  we  should  do  anything 
to  impair  and  lessen  the  powers  we  have  received  from  our 
predecessors.  I  understand  there  are  other  sums  amounting 
to  about  £1,500,000  or  £2,000,000  which  have  yet  to  go  up  to 
the  House  of  Lords.  Now,  if  the  noble  Lord  at  the  head  of  the 
Government,  acting  up  to  his  position,  which  I  think  he  has 
failed  to  do  in  this  matter,  had  asked  us,  not  on  the  ground 
(for  that  is  a  low  ground)  that  the  paper-duty  was  the  best  duty 
to  repeal,  but  on  the  ground  that  as  the  House  of  Commons  have 
come  to  the  decision  they  should  abide  by  it ;  but  if  he  had 
asked  us  to  pass  another  Bill,  with  an  altered  date,  perhaps, 
and  sent  it  up  again  to  the  House  of  Lords,  he  would  have  given 


BRIGHT  387 

them  the  opportunity  of  reconsidering  their  decision  ;  and  my 
full  belief  is  that  a  course  like  this,  taken  without  passion  and 
without  collision,  would  have  been  met  in  a  proper  temper  by 
that  House  ;  this  difficulty  would  have  been  got  over,  and  in 
all  probability  both  Houses  for  the  future  would  have  proceeded 
more  regularly  and  easily  than  they  are  likely  to  do  under  the 
plan  proposed  by  the  noble  Lord. 

Having  stated  that  I  shall  leave  the  question  of  these  Resolu- 
tions, I  say  there  is  no  reason  whatever  in  the  arguments 
which  have  always  been  used  why  this  duty  should  have  been 
maintained,  or  why  it  was  perilous  to  remit  it.  Its  repeal 
was  consistent  with  the  policy  of  the  Whigs  before  Sir  Robert 
Peel  came  into  power,  with  the  poUcy  of  Sir  Robert  Peel's 
Government,  of  Lord  Aberdeen's  Government,  of  Lord  Pal- 
merston's  Government,  of  Lord  Derby's  last  Government, 
and  of  the  existing  Government.  The  policy  of  the  repeal  of 
the  paper-duty  is  the  recognized  pohcy  of  this  House,  and  it  is 
the  admitted  interest  of  this  country.  Then,  why,  unless  it 
be  for  a  party  trimnph,  unless  it  be  to  attack  a  particular 
minister,  why  is  this  question  of  £700,000  this  year,  and  less 
than  double  that  sum  in  future  years,  raised  to  an  importance 
which  does  not  belong  to  it  ?  and  why,  for  the  sake  of  a  party 
triumph,  are  the  great  interests  connected  with  it  to  be 
damaged  and  tortured,  as  they  are  now,  by  the  action  of  one 
House  of  Parliament  ?  I  am  told  there  are  members  of  this 
House  who  would  not  support  the  Government  in  this  course, 
and  I  should  certainly  hardly  expect  that  aU  the  gentlemen 
on  the  benches  opposite  would  lend  it  their  sanction.  Yet 
I  doubt  whether  if  the  noble  Lord  at  the  head  of  the  Govern- 
ment were  to  act  in  the  manner  I  have  indicated,  the  great 
majority  of  them  would  be  induced,  upon  reflection,  to  adopt 
the  pohcy  which  they  have  pursued  with  respect  to  these 
Resolutions  ;  and  whether  the  House  of  Conmions  would  not 
have  passed  a  second  biU  even  by  a  larger  majority  than  that 
by  which  we  passed  the  last. 

There  is  a  rumour  that  some  gentlemen  on  this  side  of  the 
House  object  to  such  a  course  of  proceeding,  and  hon.  gentle- 
men opposite  have,  perhaps,  on  that  account  been  led  to  take 
up  a  Ime  of  action  upon  this  question  in  which  they  otherwise 
could  not  hope  to  succeed.  An  hon.  gentleman  behind  me, 
from  whom  I  should  have  expected  something  better,  said 


388  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

only  last  night,  in  speaking  of  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer, 
that  he  was  a  reckless  and  unsafe  Finance  Minister.  That 
observation  he  no  doubt  confined  to  the  question  of  the  repeal 
of  the  paper-duty  ;  but  I  cannot  forget  that  in  1853  we  had 
the  same  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  as  to-day,  and  that  it 
was  asserted  then  also  that  he  had  committed  great  errors. 
[Cheers  from  the  Opposition.]  Yes  ;  but  your  Chancellor 
of  the  Exchequer  was  not  in  office  long  enough  to  perpetrate 
any  great  mistakes.  Not  long  after  that  right  hon.  gentleman 
acceded  to  office,  he  brought  in  a  Budget  which  the  House  of 
Commons  rejected  ;  and  upon  the  next  occasion  on  which  he 
proposed  one,  he  found  it  necessary  to  shift  the  burden  of 
responsibility  to  the  shoulders  of  his  successor.  But  in  1853, 
when  the  right  hon.  gentleman,  the  member  for  the  University 
of  Oxford,  was  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  I  put  it  to  those 
among  us  who  were  then  Ministers  of  this  House,  whether  it  is 
not  the  fact  that  the  strength  of  the  Government  of  Lord 
Aberdeen,  of  which  he  was  a  member,  was  not  mainly  to  be 
attributed  to  his  dealing  with  the  taxation  of  the  country  in 
a  manner  which  met  with  universal  approbation  out  of 
doors  ? 

We  come  now  to  the  present  year,  and  while  I  do  not  wish 
to  depreciate  the  popularity,  or  the  character,  or  the  ability 
of  the  noble  Lord  at  the  head  of  the  Government,  or  any  of  his 
colleagues,  still  I  undertake  to  say  that  the  power  and  authority 
which  his  Administration  has  acquired  during  the  present 
session  it  has  gained  mainly  as  the  consequence  of  the  bene- 
ficial propositions  which  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  has 
made.  I  heard  somebody  last  night — I  am  not  quite  sure  it 
was  not  the  right  hon.  gentleman  below  me  to-night — talk  of 
the  House  of  Commons  having  been  partly  charmed  and  partly 
coerced  into  the  acceptance  of  these  propositions.  But  if  that 
be  so,  and  if  we  have  proved  ourselves  to  be  soft-headed 
children  who  could  be  so  swayed,  I  must  say  it  appears  to  me 
very  strange  that  such  should  be  the  case  ;  for  I  think  the 
House  of  Commons  has,  upon  the  contrary,  shown  wonderful 
independence,  and  has  proved  itself  to  be  extremely  free  from 
all  those  ties,  the  acting  in  accordance  with  which  usually 
enables  a  government  to  conduct  the  business  of  a  session  with 
success.  Be  that,  however,  as  it  may,  I  repeat  that  the 
Budget  of  the  right  hon.  gentleman,  the  Chancellor  of  the 


BRIGHT  389 

Exchequer,  when  it  was  laid  before  the  country,  was  received 
throughout  all  the  great  seats  of  industry,  and  among  the 
farmers,  too — for  it  tended  to  benefit  them  as  the  inhabitants 
of  towns — with  universal  approbation. 

The  right  hon.  gentleman  below  me  has  been  •  indulging 
himself  to-night,  in  accordance  with  his  custom,  in  condemning 
the  French  Treaty,  and  I  must  say  we  have  heard  a  great 
deal  upon  that  subject  since  it  was  first  mooted  in  this  House. 
We  have  heard  it  commented  on  by  a  great  journal  in  this 
country,  whose  motive  I  will  not  attempt  to  divine,  but  whose 
motto  must,  I  think,  be  that  which  Pascal  said  ought  to  have 
been  adopted  by  one  of  the  ancients — "  Omnia  pro  tempore, 
sed  nihil  pro  veritate," — which,  being  translated,  may  be 
rendered — "  Everything  for  The  Times,  but  nothing  for  the 
truth."  We  have  had,  in  short,  every  description  of  falsehood 
propounded  with  respect  to  this  Treaty.  The  right  hon. 
gentleman  below  me  has  not  hesitated  to  give  currency  to 
representations  with  respect  to  it  which  are  wholly  inaccurate, 
and  to  which,  if  I  were  not  here,  I  would  apply  a  still  stronger 
term.  Did  not  the  right  hon.  gentleman  say  our  manufac- 
turers were — I  forget  the  word — plaintiffs — no,  suppliants  in 
the  Ante-chamber  of  the  Emperor  of  the  French  ?  The  state- 
ment is  one,  I  can  tell  him,  which  is  wholly  untrue  ;  nay, 
more, — and  I  may  say  that,  with  the  exception  of  some  right 
hon.  gentlemen  sitting  on  the  Treasury  bench,  there  is  no  one 
more  competent  to  give  an  opinion  on  the  subject  than  myself, 
for  reasons  with  which  the  House  is  of  course  acquainted, — 
I  tell  the  right  hon.  gentleman  that  nothing  can  exceed  the 
good  faith  and  the  liberality  with  which  that  whole  question 
is  being  treated  by  the  Commissioners  of  the  French  Govern- 
ment. I  would  have  him  know  that  they  are  as  anxious  as 
our  Commissioners  that  a  great  trade  between  England  and 
France  should  spring  up  ;  and  I  will  add  that  in  the  case  of 
nations  and  governments  in  amity  one  with  the  other,  whose 
representatives  are  endeavouring  in  all  fairness  and  frankness 
to  extend  the  commerce  between  both,  he  is  neither  a  statesman 
nor  a  patriot  who  seeks  to  depreciate  in  the  eyes  of  his  country- 
men the  instrument  by  which  it  is  hoped  these  results  will  be 
accomplished,  and  who  thus  does  his  utmost  to  prevent  its 
success. 

I  come  now  to  ask  the  House  what  is  this  reform  in  the  tariff 


390  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

introduced  by  the  right  hon.  gentleman,  the  Chancellor  of  the 
Exchequer,  by  which  you  are  so  frightened  ?  Is  it  something 
novel  ?  The  right  hon.  gentleman  below  me  says  it  is  a  scheme 
both  new  and  gigantic  in  its  proportions,  and  fatal  in  its 
principle.  I  was  speaking  last  week  to  an  hon.  member  for  a 
south-western  county  who  sits  on  the  benches  opposite,  and  he 
spoke  in  terms  of  exultation  to  me  of  the  success  of  late  years 
of  that  branch  of  industry  in  which  you  are  peculiarly  inter- 
ested. Is  it  honest,  then,  that  you  should  make  such  acknow- 
ledgments and  not  consent  to  extend  further  the  principles 
which  the  whole  country  has  pronounced  to  be  sound  and 
beneficial  ?  We  boast  of  the  freedom  of  our  commerce.  That 
commerce  has  more  than  doubled  since  I  had  first  the  honour 
of  a  seat  in  this  House.  When,  therefore,  you  now  attack, 
through  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  principles  the  adop- 
tion of  which  has  wrought  this  great  good,  you  are  not,  in  my 
opinion,  pursuing  a  course  which  will  enhance  your  reputation 
with  the  country  which  you  profess  to  represent.  There  is 
not,  I  contend,  a  man  who  labours  and  sweats  for  his  daily 
bread  ;  there  is  not  a  woman  living  in  a  cottage,  who  strives  to 
make  her  humble  home  happy  and  comfortable  for  her  husband 
and  her  children,  to  whom  the  words  of  the  Chancellor  of  the 
Exchequer  have  not  brought  hope,  to  whom  his  measures, 
which  have  been  defended  with  an  eloquence  few  can  equal, 
and  with  a  logic  none  can  contest,  have  not  administered  con- 
solation. I  appeal  to  the  past  and  present  condition  of  the 
country,  and  I  ask  you,  solemnly,  to  oppose  no  obstacle  to  the 
realization  of  those  great  and  good  principles  of  legislation. 

I  wiU  not  enter  further  into  this  question.  I  am  unable 
from  physical  causes  to  speak  with  clearness,  and  I  am  afraid 
I  must  have  somewhat  pained  those  who  have  heard  me.  I 
must,  however,  repeat  my  regret  that  the  noble  Viscount  at 
the  head  of  the  Government  has  not  shown  more  courage  in 
this  matter  than  he  appears  to  me  to  have  exhibited,  and  that 
the  House  of  Commons  has  not  evinced  more  self-respect. 
I  fear  this  session  may  as  a  consequence  become  memorable 
as  that  in  which,  for  the  first  time,  the  Commons  of  England 
has  surrendered  a  right  which  for  500  years  they  had  maintained 
unimpaired.  I,  at  least,  and  those  who  act  with  me,  wiU  be 
clear  from  any  participation  in  this  ;  we  shall  be  free  from 
the  shame  which  must  indelibly  attach  to  the  chief  actors  in 


Bright  391 

these  proceedings.  I  protested  against  the  order  of  reference 
which  the  noble  Lord  proposed,  though  I  sat  and  laboured  on 
the  Committee  with  earnest  fideUty  on  behalf  of  the  House  of 
Commons.  I  have  felt  it  an  honour  to  sit  in  this  House  up 
to  this  time,  and  I  hope  that  hereafter  the  character  of  this 
House  will  not  be  impaired  by  the  course  which  is  about  to  be 
taken.  I  have  endeavoured  to  show  to  my  countrymen  what 
I  consider  to  be  almost  the  treason  which  is  about  to  be  com- 
mitted against  them.  I  have  refused  to  dishonour  the  memory 
of  such  members  as  Coke  and  Selden,  and  Glanville  and  Pym  ; 
and,  if  defeated  in  this  struggle,  I  shall  have  this  consolation, 
that  I  have  done  all  I  can  to  maintain  the  honour  of  this 
House,  and  that  I  have  not  sacrificed  the  interests  which  my 
constituents  conmiitted  to  my  care. 


ROBERT    LOWE 

Lowe's  oratorical  reputation  was  acquired  and  retained 
only  during  the  Parliamentary  Sessions  of  1866  and  1867. 
Before  that  period  he  had  not  been  conspicuous  in  Parliament, 
though  he  had  been  an  excellent  Minister  of  Education. 
When  he  afterwards  became  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer, 
his  power  of  speaking  seemed  to  have  almost  entirely  deserted 
him.  It  was  his  opposition  to  Parliamentary  Reform  as 
brought  forward  first  by  Gladstone,  and  afterwards  by 
Disraeli,  that  inspired  him  with  the  fervid  eloquence  to 
which  he  owes  his  rhetorical  fame.  Fear  of  democracy  was 
the  guiding  spirit  of  his  indignant  denunciations.  He  had 
studied  it  in  Australia,  where  it  greatly  alarmed  him,  and  his 
dread  of  it  induced  him  to  treat  a  moderate,  almost  timid, 
extension  of  the  franchise  as  if  it  had  been  a  measure  for 
placing  the  State  under  the  heels  of  a  rabble.  There  can  be 
no  doubt  that  in  expressing  his  apprehensions  he  electrified  the 
House  of  Commons  by  the  pungent  vigour  of  his  incisive 
sarcasm,  and  the  bold  flights  of  his  polished  vituperation.  How 
far  he  meant  it  all  the  readers  of  his  speeches  may  judge  for 
themselves.  It  is  certainly  more  artificial  than  most  real 
eloquence.  The  art,  however,  is  extremely  good,  and  the 
effect  produced  is  not  the  less  triumphant  because  the  material 
is  unusually  slender.  The  enfranchisement  of  the  working 
classes  is  a  question  of  the  first  magnitude.  But  Mr.  Glad- 
stone's, or  Lord  Russell's  Bill  would  merely  have  reduced 
an  annual  qualification  of  ten  pounds  to  one  of  seven,  and 
to  create  alarm  out  of  such  a  change  required  imaginative 
as  well  as  oratorical  power.  Lowe  was  a  classical  scholar 
who  had  imbibed  the  style  of  Greek  and  Latin  orators  with  as 
much  zeal  and  thoroughness  as  Pitt.  Yet  his  range  was 
too  narrow,  his  diction  was  too  monotonous,  to  have  been 
long  admired,  or  even  tolerated,  in  the  House  of  Commons. 

p92 


LOWE  393 

He  was  the  man  of  a  subject,  and  of  an  occasion.  Attack 
and  invective  were  necessary  for  the  full  development  of 
his  faculties.  His  speeches  in  1866,  and  one  of  his  speeches 
in  1867,  remain  by  themselves,  quite  unlike  and  apart  from 
anything  he  achieved  before,  or  anything  he  accomplished 
afterwards.  They  represent  the  oratory  of  protest,  the 
declamation  of  a  man  who  feels  that  he  is  making  a  last  stand 
against  a  perilous  future.  For,  though  Gladstone's  Bill  was 
defeated,  Lowe  was  not  among  those  who  believed  in  the 
permanence  of  the  defeat. 

Representation  of  the  People  Bill,^ 
House  of  Commons,  May  31s/,  1866 

Mr.  Speaker,  we  are  now  called  to  go  into  committee  on  a  Bill 
which  has  never  been  read  a  second  time.  The  two  halves  of 
it  have  been  read,  each  of  them  a  second  time,  but  the  whole 
measure  we  have  never  until  this  moment  had  before  us.  The 
first  half  this  House  was  induced — or  shall  I  say  coerced  ? 
into  reading  a  second  time  without  knowledge  of  the  other  part. 
The  second  half  was  really  hurried  on  so  fast  to  a  second  reading 
— only  an  interval  of  a  week  being  given  to  master  all  its  com- 
plicated details — that  I,  for  one,  was  quite  unable  to  take  part 
in  the  discussion  on  the  second  reading,  for  want  of  time  to 
make  up  my  mind  as  to  an  opinion  by  which  I  should  be 
willing  to  stand.  I  hope,  therefore,  the  House  will  allow  me, 
even  at  this  stage,  to  question  the  principle  of  the  measure. 
What  is  that  principle  ?  I  must  apologise  to  the  House  for 
the  monotonous  nature  of  my  complaints,  which  are,  I  think, 
justified  by  the  uniform  nature  of  the  provocation  I  receive. 
That  provocation  is  that  the  Government  keeps  continually 
bringing  in  measures,  attacking,  as  it  seems  to  me,  the  very 
vital  and  fundamental  institutions  of  the  country,  and  pur- 
posely abstains  from  telling  us  the  principle  of  those  measures. 
I  made  the  same  complaint,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  against  the 
Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  on  the  Franchise  Bill:  I  make  it 
again  now.  The  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  in  introducing 
the  Redistribution  Bill,  said  that  the  Government  was  not 

1  This  speech  was  made  when  Lord  Russell's  Government  proposed  to 
go  into  Committee  on  the  Reform  Bill  and  the  Redistribution  Bill  of  1 866. 


394  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

desirous  of  innovation — that  is  to  say,  they  went  on  no  principle. 
Their  principle,  he  said,  was  the  same  as  the  principle  of  every 
Redistribution  Bill.  Now,  that  appears  to  me  to  be  impossible, 
because  Redistribution  Bills  may  be  divided  into  two  classes. 
There  is  one,  the  great  Reform  Bill — the  only  successful 
Redistribution  Bill  that  anyone  ever  heard  of,  and  then  there 
are  the  four  which  succeeded  it,  and  which  all  failed  from  one 
cause  or  another,  and  the  principle  of  the  four  Bills  which 
followed  was  another.  The  principle  of  the  Reform  Bill,  was 
no  doubt,  disfranchisement.  The  feeling  of  the  country  at 
the  time  was,  that  the  deliberations  of  this  House  were  over- 
ruled, and  the  public  opinion  stifled,  by  an  enormous  number 
of  small  boroughs  under  the  patronage  of  noblemen  and 
persons  of  property.  That  state  of  things  was  considered  a 
public  nuisance,  and  one  which  it  was  desirable  to  abate,  and 
hence  the  principle  of  the  Reform  Bill  was  disfranchisement, 
and  141  members  were  taken  away  from  the  small  boroughs. 
The  Government  proposition  was  to  reduce  the  number  of  the 
House  of  Commons  by  fifty,  because  they  were  very  anxious 
to  get  rid  of  these  members,  and  they  had  no  means  which 
appeared  suitable  of  filling  up  the  vacancies  they  had  created. 
It  was  only  on  an  amendment  carried  against  the  Government 
that  it  was  determined  not  to  diminish  the  number  of  members  in 
this  House.  But  has  that  been  the  principle  of  any  subsequent 
Reform  Bill  ?  I  think  not ;  it  has  been  quite  the  contrary, 
it  has  been  the  principle  of  enfranchisement ;  and  of  enfran- 
chisement only  so  far  as  may  be  necessary  in  order  to  fill  up  the 
places  which  require  enfranchisement.  As  I  have  shown  the 
House,  there  are  two  different  principles,  and  the  right  hon. 
gentleman  does  not  tell  me  which  is  his,  but  says  the  principle 
is  that  of  all  other  Redistribution  Bills.  This  puts  me  in  mind 
of  the  story  of  a  lady  who  wrote  to  a  friend  to  ask  how  she  was 
to  receive  a  particular  lover,  and  the  answer  was,  *'  As  you 
receive  all  your  other  lovers."  Well,  as  the  Chancellor  of  the 
Exchequer  will  not  tell  us  what  the  principle  of  his  measure  is, 
I  must,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  with  the  same  monotony  of  treat- 
ment, try  to  puzzle  it  out  for  myself,  for  it  seems  to  me  pre- 
posterous to  consider  the  Bill  without  the  guiding  thought 
of  those  who  constructed  it.  There  is  one  principle  of 
redistribution  upon  which  it  clearly  ought  not  to  be  founded, 
and  that   is   the  principle  of  abstract   right   to  equality  of 


LOWE  395 

representation.  The  principle  of  equal  electoral  districts,  or  an 
approximation  to  such  districts,  is  not  the  principle  on  which  a 
Redistribution  Bill  ought  to  be  based.  To  adopt  such  a 
principle  would  be  to  make  us  the  slaves  of  numbers — very 
good  servants  but  very  bad  masters.  I  do  not  suppose  we  are 
eager  to  see  the  time  : 

"  When  each  fair  burgh,  numerically  free, 
Returns  its  members  by  the  Rule  of  Three." 

And  yet,  though  few  persons  stand  up  for  the  principle  of 
equality  of  representation,  I  cannot  escape  the  conclusion  that 
it  has  had  a  good  deal  to  do  with  the  matter,  and  that  the 
Government  will  find  it  exceedingly  difficult  to  point  out  what 
other  principle  than  that  of  a  sort  of  approximation  towards 
numerical  equality  has  guided  them.  For  if  it  be  not  a  prin- 
ciple of  d  priori  rights,  it  must  be  some  good  to  the  State, 
some  improvement  of  the  House  or  the  Government — some 
practical  good  in  some  way.  Now,  the  House  has  had  the 
advantage  of  hearing  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  the 
Secretary  of  State  for  the  Colonies,  and  the  Chancellor  of  the 
Duchy  of  Lancaster,  and  I  ask  whether  any  of  these  right 
honourable  gentlemen  has  pointed  out  any  good  of  any  prac- 
tical nature  whatever  to  be  expected  from  the  Bill.  I  set 
myself,  therefore,  according  to  my  old  method,  to  try  and 
puzzle  out  what  ought  to  be  the  principle  of  a  Bill  for  the 
Redistribution  of  Seats.  In  the  first  place,  I  should  like  to  be 
shown  some  practical  evil  to  be  remedied,  but  I  give  that  up 
in  despair,  for  I  have  so  often  asked  for  it  and  failed  to  obtain  it, 
that  I  am  quite  sure  I  shall  not  have  it  on  this  occasion.  But 
it  seems  to  me  a  reasonable  view  of  a  Redistribution  Bill,  that 
it  should  make  this  House,  more  fully  and  perfectly  than  it  is 
at  present,  a  reflection  of  the  opinion  of  the  country.  That, 
I  think,  is  a  fair  ground  to  start  from.  We  have  suffered  in 
many  respects  from  the  arbitrary  division  of  these  two 
measures,  and  in  none  more  than  this — that  the  arguments  for 
the  Redistribution  of  Seats  have  been  transferred  to  this  Bill 
for  enlarging  the  franchise.  For,  although  it  is  quite  true  that 
a  Bill  for  the  Redistribution  of  Seats  should  aim  at  making 
Parliament  a  mirror  of  the  country,  it  is  also  true  that  there 
can  be  nothing  more  inappropriate  than  the  argument  when 
applied  to  the  enlargement  of  the  franchise.  For  to  pass  a 
Bill  which  puts  the  power  in  a  majority  of  the  boroughs  into 


396  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

the  hands  of  the  working  classes,  is  not  to  make  this  House  a 
faithful  reflection  of  the  opinion  of  the  country,  but  is  to  make 
it  an  inversion  of  that  opinion  by  giving  political  power  into 
the  hands  of  those  who  have  very  little  social  power  of  any  kind. 
But  that  principle  applies,  to  a  certain  extent,  to  a  Redistribu- 
tion Bill,  and  from  that  point  I  take  my  departure .  Anyone 
who  makes  an  examination  as  to  the  nature  of  the  deficiency, 
will  see  whether  this  House  fails  in  any  considerable  degree  to 
reflect  the  opinion  of  the  country.  I  confess  I  have  found  it 
exceedingly  difficult  to  discover  in  what  respect  it  fails  to  do 
so.  I  have,  indeed,  observed  some  tendency  of  a  kind,  which, 
if  we  are  to  have  a  Redistribution  Bill,  ought  to  be  corrected, 
I  think  there  is  a  visible  tendency  to  too  great  a  uniformity 
and  monotony  of  representation.  I  think  there  is  a  danger 
that  we  may  become  too  much  like  each  other — that  we  may 
become  merely  the  multiple  of  one  number.  That  is  a  danger 
which  has  occurred  to  thinking  men,  and  I  think  it  very 
desirable  that  in  a  Redistribution  Bill  we  should  find  a  remedy, 
if  possible,  for  the  tendency  to  this  level  of  monotony,  and 
perhaps  mediocrity.  I  think  another  great  object  we  must 
have  in  view  in  a  Redistribution  Bill  should  be  enfranchise- 
ment, and  by  that  I  mean  not  the  aggregation  of  fresh  members 
to  large  constituencies,  but  the  enfranchisement  of  fresh  con- 
stituencies, and  by  the  enfranchisement  of  such  constituencies 
the  giving  more  variety  and  life  to  the  representation  of  the 
country,  and  thus  making  the  House  what  the  -country  is — 
a  collection  of  infinite  variety  of  all  sorts  of  pursuits  and  habits. 
I  think  the  second  advantage  is,  that  by  making  fresh  constitu- 
encies by  fresh  enfranchisements  you  do  the  most  efficient 
thing  you  can  do  towards  moderating  the  frightful,  enormous, 
and  increasing  expenses  of  elections.  This  is  one  of  the  greatest 
evils  of  our  present  system.  I  am  not  speaking  of  the  illegiti- 
mate expenses  of  elections,  but  of  the  legitimate  expenses.  We 
had  a  paper  laid  upon  our  tables  this  morning  giving  an  account 
of  the  expenses  from  **  S  "  downwards.  I  take  the  first  few  large 
boroughs,  and  I  will  read  the  expenses.  The  expense  of  the  elec- 
tion for  Stafford  is  £5,400  ;  Stoke-upon-Trent,  £6,200  ;  Sunder- 
land, £5,000  ;  and  Westminster,  £12,000.  These  are  the  aggre- 
gate expenses  of  all  the  candidates.  I  take  them  as  they  come, 
without  picking  and  choosing.  I  wish  to  call  particular  atten- 
tion to  the  case  of  Westminster,  not  for  the  purpose  of  saying 


LOWE  397 

anything  disagreeable  to  my  honourable  friend  (Mr.  J.  Stuart 
Mill) ,  for  we  know  he  was  elected  in  a  burst — I  will  say  a  well- 
directed  burst — of  popular  enthusiasm.  That  was  honourable 
to  him  and  honourable  to  them,  and  I  have  no  doubt  that  in  the 
course  of  the  election  all  that  could  be  done  by  industry  and 
enthusiasm  was  accomplished — gratuitously  ;  and  I  am  sure 
that  my  honourable  friend  did  not  contribute  in  any  way  to 
swell  any  unreasonable  election  expenses.  His  election  ought 
to  have  been  gratuitous  ;  but  mark  what  it  cost — £2,302. 
I  beheve  it  did  not  cost  him  6d.  He  refused  to  contribute 
anything,  and  it  was  very  much  to  the  honour  of  his  constitu- 
ents that  they  brought  him  in  gratuitously.  But  look  to  the 
state  of  our  election  practices,  when  such  an  outburst  of  popular 
feeling  could  not  be  given  effect  to  without  that  enormous 
sacrifice  of  money.  I  will  now  call  attention  to  two  or  three 
counties.  This  subject  has  not  been  sufficiently  dwelt  upon, 
but  bears  materially  upon  the  question  before  us  to-night. 
I  will  take  the  southern  division  of  Derbyshire.  The  election 
cost  £8,500,  and  this  is  the  cheapest  I  shall  read.  The  northern 
division  of  Durham  cost  £14,620,  and  the  southern  division 
£11, 000.  South  Essex  cost  £10,000  ;  West  Kent  cost  £12,000  ; 
South  Lancashire,  £17,000  ;  South  Shropshire,  £12,000  ;  North 
Staffordshire,  £14,000  ;  North  Warwickshire,  £10,000  ;  South 
Warwickshire,  £13,000;  North  Wiltshire,  £13,000;  South 
Wiltshire,  £12,000;  and  the  North  Riding  of  Yorkshire, 
£27,000  ; — all  legitimate  expenses,  but  by  no  means  the  whole 
expense.  Now  I  ask  the  House  how  it  is  possible  that  the 
institutions  of  this  country  can  endure,  if  this  kind  of  thing 
is  to  go  on  and  increase.  Do  not  suppose  for  a  moment  that 
this  is  favourable  to  anything  aristocratic.  It  is  quite  the 
contrary.  It  is  favourable  to  a  plutocracy  working  on  a 
democracy.  Think  of  the  persons  excluded  by  such  a  system  ! 
You  want  rank,  wealth,  good  connections,  and  gentleman-like 
demeanour,  but  you  also  want  sterling  talent  and  ability  for 
the  business  of  the  country,  and  how  can  you  expect  it  when 
no  man  can  stand  who  is  not  prepared  to  pay  a  considerable 
proportion  of  such  frightful  expenses  ?  I  think  I  am  not  wrong 
in  saying  that  another  object  of  the  Redistribution  BiU  might 
very  well  be  to  diminish  the  expense  of  elections  by  diminishing 
the  size  of  the  electoral  districts.  These  are  the  objects  which 
I  picture  to  myself  ought  to  be  aimed  at  by  a  Redistribution 


398  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

Bill.  It  should  aim  at  variety  and  economy,  and  should  look 
upon  disfranchisement  as  a  means  of  enfranchisement.  And 
now,  having  done  with  that,  I  will  just  approach  the  Bill,  and 
having  trespassed  inordinately  upon  former  occasions  upon  the 
time  of  the  House,  I  will  now  only  allude  to  two  points.  One 
is  the  grouping  and  the  other  is  adding  the  third  member  to 
counties  and  boroughs.  This  word  "  group  "  is  very  pretty 
and  picturesque.  It  reminds  one  of  Watteau  and  Wouvermans 
— of  a  group  of  young  ladies,  of  pretty  children,  of  tulips  or 
anything  else  of  that  kind.  But  it  really  is  a  word  of  most 
disagreeable  significance  when  analysed,  because  it  means 
disfranchising  a  borough  and  in  a  very  uncomfortable  manner 
refranchising  it.  It  means  disfranchising  the  integer,  and 
refranchising  and  replacing  it  by  exceedingly  vulgar  fractions. 
Well,  now,  I  ask  myself  why  do  we  disfranchise  and  why  do  we 
enfranchise  ?  I  do  not  speak  now  of  the  eight  members  got 
by  taking  the  second  members  from  boroughs,  but  of  the  forty- 
one  got  by  grouping — by  disfranchisement  and  enfranchise- 
ment. And  I  ask,  in  the  first  place,  why  disfranchise  these 
small  boroughs  ?  I  have  heard  no  answer  to  this  from  the 
Government.  All  that  was  attempted  was  said  by  the  Chan- 
cellor of  the  Exchequer — that  he  had  in  1859  advocated  the 
maintenance  of  the  small  boroughs  on  the  ground  they  admitted 
young  men  of  talent  to  that  House,  but  he  found  on  examina- 
tion that  they  did  not  admit  young  men  of  talent ;  and, 
therefore,  he  ceased  to  advocate  the  retention  of  small  boroughs. 
My  right  honourable  friend  is  possibly  satisfied  with  his  own 
reasoning.  He  answered  his  own  argument  to  his  own  satis- 
faction ;  but  what  I  wanted  to  hear  is,  not  only  that  the 
argument  he  used  seven  years  ago  had  ceased  to  have  any 
influence  on  his  own  mind,  but  what  the  argument  is  which 
has  induced  the  Government  to  disfranchise  the  boroughs  ; 
of  this  he  said  not  a  single  syllable.  I  know  my  own  position 
too  well  to  offer  anything  in  favour  of  small  boroughs.  That 
would  not  come  with  a  good  grace  from  me  ;  but  I  have  a 
duty  to  perform  to  some  of  my  constituents.  They  are  not  all 
ambitious  of  the  honours  of  martyrdom.  So  I  will  give  a  very 
good  argument  in  favour  of  small  boroughs.  What  is  the 
character  of  the  House  of  Commons  ? 

"  It  is  a  character  of  extreme  diversity  of  representation.     Elections 
by  great  bodies,  agricultural,  commercial,   or  manufacturing,  in  our 


LOWE  399 

counties  and  great  cities  are  balanced  by  the  right  of  election  in 
boroughs  of  small  or  moderate  population,  which  are  thus  admitted 
to  fill  up  the  defects  and  complete  the  fullness  of  our  representation." 

I  need  not  say  that  I  am  reading  from  the  work  of  a  Prime 
Minister.  Not  only  that,  but  he  repubhshed  it  in  the  spring 
of  last  year,  and  in  that  edition  this  passage  is  not  there.  But 
he  published  a  second  and  more  popular  edition  in  the  autumn, 
and  in  the  autumn  of  last  year  he  inserted  the  passage  I  am 
now  reading.  The  Prime  Minister  differs  from  the  Chancellor 
of  the  Duchy,  for  he  seems  fonder  of  illustration  than  argument. 

"  For  instance,  Mr.  Thomas  Baring  "  (he  goes  on  to  say),  "  from  his 
commercial  eminence,  from  his  high  character,  from  his  world-wide 
position,  ought  to  be  a  member  of  the  House  of  Commons.  His 
political  opinions,  and  nothing  but  his  political  opinions,  prevent  his 
being  the  fittest  person  to  be  a  member  for  the  City  of  London." 

It  would  have  been  better  to  have  said,  "  his  political  opinions 
prevented  his  being  a  member  for  the  City  of  London,"  without 
saying  they  prevented  his  being  "  the  fittest  person,"  which  is 
invidious. 

"  But  the  borough  of  Huntingdon,  with  2,654  inhabitants 
and  393  registered  voters,  elects  him  willingly."  Next  he 
instances  my  right  hon.  friend,  the  Secretary  of  State  for  the 
Home  Department ;  but,  as  he  happily  stands  aside  and  looks 
upon  the  troubles  of  the  small  boroughs  as  the  gods  of  Lucretius 
did  upon  the  troubles  of  mankind,  I  will  not  read  all  the  pretty 
things  which  the  Prime  Minister  says  of  him.  Then  we  come 
next  to  the  Attorney-General : 

"  Sir  Roundell  Palmer  is,  omnium  consensu,  well  qualified  to  enlighten 
the  House  of  Commons  on  any  question  of  municipal  or  international 
law,  and  to  expound  the  true  theory  and  practice  of  law  reform.  He 
could  not  stand  for  Westminster  or  Middlesex,  for  Lancashire  or 
Yorkshire,  with  much  chance  of  success." 

The  House  will  observe  that  that  was  written  last  autumn. 
If  it  had  been  written  this  morning  I  think  very  possibly  the 
Prime  Minister  might  have  cancelled  these  words,  and  said, 
"  The  honourable  and  learned  gentleman  would  have  stood 
for  one  of  those  large  constituencies  with  every  prospect  of 
success."  Now  is  it  credible,  is  it  possible  to  conceive,  that 
the  writer  of  these  words  should  actually  be  the  Premier  of 
the  Government  which,  not  six  months  after  these  illustrations 
were  given,  has  introduced  this  new  Reform  Bill  to  group  and 


400  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

disfranchise  the  very  boroughs  he  thus  instanced  ?  Well, 
there  is  a  little  more  : 

"  Dr.  Temple  says,  in  a  letter  to  the  Daily  News,  '  I  know  that  when 
Emerson  was  in  England  he  regretted  to  me  that  all  the  more  cultivated 
classes  in  America  abstained  from  politics,  because  they  felt  themselves 
hopelessly  swamped.'  " 

These  last  words  are  given  in  italics,  the  only  construction 
I  can  put  upon  which  is,  that  the  noble  Lord  thought,  if  many 
of  these  small  boroughs  were  disfranchised,  the  persons  he 
desires  to  see  in  this  House  would  not  come  here,  else  I  do  not 
see  what  is  the  application  of  the  passage.     He  goes  on  to  say  : 

"  It  is  very  rare  to  find  a  man  of  literary  taste  and  cultivated  under- 
standing expose  himself  to  the  rough  reception  of  the  election  of  a 
large  city." 

There  is  a  compliment  here  to  many  of  the  noble  Lord's  most 
ardent  supporters.     But  he  continues  : 

"  The  small  boroughs,  by  returning  men  of  knowledge  acquired  in 
the  study,  and  of  temper  moderated  in  the  intercourse  of  refined 
society," — 

Where  the  members  for  large  boroughs  never  go,  I  suppose : 

"  restore  the  balance  which  Marylebone  and  Manchester,  if  left 
even  with  the  ;^10  franchise  undisputed  masters  of  the  field,  would 
radically  disturb." 

Whether  that  means  to  disturb  from  the  roots  or  to  disturb 
from  radicalism,  I  do  not  know. 

"  But,  besides  this  advantage,  they  act  with  the  counties  in  giving 
that  due  influence  to  property  without  which  our  House  of  Commons 
would  very  inadequately  represent  the  nation,  and  thus  make  it  feasible 
to  admit  the  householders  of  our  large  towns  to  an  extent  which  would 
otherwise  be  inequitable,  and  possibly  lead  to  injurious  results." 

So  that  the  proposal  of  the  noble  Lord's  Government,  coupled 
as  it  is  with  the  disfranchisement  of  these  small  boroughs,  is 
in  his  opinion  inequitable  certainly,  and  possibly  likely  to 
lead  to  injurious  results.     He  goes  on  : 

"  These  are  the  reasons  why,  in  my  opinion,  after  abolishing  141  seats 
by  the  Reform  Act,  it  is  not  expedient  that  the  smaller  boroughs  should 
be  extinguished  by  any  further  large  process  of  disfranchisement.  The 
last  Reform  Bill  of  Lord  Palmerston's  Government  went  quite  far 
enough  in  this  direction." 

Now,  Sir,  what  did  the  last  Reform  Bill  of  Lord  Palmerston 


LOWE  401 

do  ?  It  took  away  the  second  member  from  twenty-five 
boroughs,  and  that  was  the  whole  of  it.  It  did  not  break  up 
a  single  electoral  district.  The  present  Bill  takes  away  forty- 
nine  members  from  these  places,  and,  therefore,  according  to 
the  words  of  the  Prime  Minister,  written  six  months  ago,  it 
exactly  doubles  what  the  ministry  ought  to  do  in  the  matter. 
After  that,  I  think  the  House  wiU  agree  with  me  that  it  would 
not  become  the  member  for  Calne  to  add  anything  in  defence 
of  his  borough  ;  for  what  could  he  say  that  the  Prime  Minister 
had  not  said  a  hundred  times  better,  and  with  all  the  authority 
and  weight  of  such  a  statesman,  writing  deliberately  in  his 
study  no  less  than  thirty-three  years  after  the  passing  of  the 
Reform  Act  ?  Well,  I  shall  say  no  more  of  that,  but,  for  some 
reason  which  we  have  yet  to  hear,  I  will  assume  that  the  small 
boroughs  are  to  be  disfranchised.  The  next  question  that  we 
have  to  consider  is,  what  is  to  be  done  with  the  seats  to  be 
acquired  by  that  disfranchisement.  It  does  seem  to  me  quite 
absurd  to  halt  between  two  opinions  in  this  way.  I  must 
assume  that  there  is  some  good  and  cogent  reason  for  disfran- 
chising the  small  boroughs,  or  else,  I  suppose,  they  would  let 
us  alone.  But  if  there  be  a  good  and  cogent  reason  for  dis- 
franchising them,  what  possible  reason  can  there  be  for 
re-enfranchising  them  immediately  afterwards  ?  What  reason 
can  there  be  for  giving  them  back  as  a  fraction  that  which 
you  have  taken  away  as  an  integer  ?  The  first  process  con- 
demns the  second.  It  may  be  right  and  wise — I  do  not  in  my 
conscience  think  it  is — to  disfranchise  these  boroughs  ;  but 
if  you  do  take  that  course,  your  business  surely  should  be  to 
do  the  best  you  can  for  the  interests  of  the  country  at  large 
with  the  seats  you  thus  obtain.  If  you  are  to  be  influenced 
by  respect  for  traditions  and  by  veneration  for  antiquity, 
perhaps  Calne  should  have  some  claim,  because  it  was  there 
that  the  memorable  encounter  is  said  to  have  taken  place 
between  St.  Dunstan  and  his  enemies,  which  terminated  in  the 
combatants  all  tumbling  through  the  floor,  with  the  exception 
of  the  saint  himself.  And  I  may  remind  you  that  in  our  own 
times  Calne  was  represented  by  Dunning,  by  Lord  Henry 
Petty,  by  Mr.  Abercromby,  for  some  time  Speaker  of  this 
House,  and  by  Lord  Macaulay.  That  might  avail  something  ; 
but  if  it  is  all  to  go  for  nothing,  I  ask  on  what  principle,  having 
first  broken  up  the  electoral  system  of  these  boroughs  and  taken 
26— (2170) 


402  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

away  their  franchise,  you  begin  to  reconstruct  them  in  these 
groups  ?  If  you  are  actuated  by  a  veneration  for  antiquity, 
or  by  an  indisposition  to  destroy  a  state  of  things  which  is,  if 
not  carried  too  far,  in  no  shght  degree  advantageous,  and 
eases  very  much  the  working  of  the  Government  of  the  country, 
besides  introducing  into  this  House  a  class  of  persons,  some 
of  whom  you  would  do  very  badly  without — if  that  be  so,  leave 
these  boroughs  alone.  If  it  be  not,  deal  with  the  question 
in  a  bold  and  manly  spirit ;  but  do  not  take  a  thing  away  from 
them  because  you  say  it  is  wrong  they  should  have  it  and  then 
give  it  them  back  again  in  part,  because  you  say  it  is  right  they 
should  have  it.  That  involves  a  contradiction.  Look  at  what 
you  are  doing.  You  take  away  the  franchise  from  these  places, 
and  then  you  limit  yourself  by  giving  it  to  boroughs  which 
have  previously  possessed  it.  You  unite  together  boroughs 
that  have  been  in  the  habit  of  engrossing  for  themselves  all 
the  care  and  attention  of  a  single  member,  who  is  obliged  to  pay 
great  regard  to  their  wishes,  to  look  after  their  little  wants, 
to  pet  them,  and  coddle  them,  and  make  much  of  them.  That 
which  he  has  been  used  to  do  for  one  of  these  boroughs  he  will 
still  be  expected  to  do,  and  must  do,  after  they  are  grouped  ; 
and  what  he  does  and  pays  for  one  of  the  groups  he  will  have 
to  do  and  pay  for  all  the  rest.  Not  one  of  these  three  or  four 
will  bate  one  jot  or  tittle  of  its  claim  upon  the  member  or 
candidate,  but  everything  will  be  multiplied  by  so  many  times 
as  there  are  separate  places  in  the  group.  You  must  have  as 
many  agents  in  each  of  them,  you  must  give  as  many  sub- 
scriptions to  their  charities,  their  schools  and  their  volunteers. 
Everything  of  that  kind,  in  fact,  will  be  multiplied  by  this 
system  three  or  fourfold.  Now,  these  boroughs  at  present 
give  you  a  great  advantage.  All  must  admit  that  there  is 
an  advantage,  if  it  is  not  bought  too  dear,  in  having  means 
by  which  persons  who  are  not  of  large  fortune  can  obtain  seats 
in  the  House.  But  by  this  Bill  you  take  away  that  one  clear 
advantage  of  these  boroughs,  the  one  thing  for  which,  I  think, 
they  very  worthily  exist — you  make  them  very  expensive 
constituencies,  and  you  then  retain  them,  out  of  veneration 
for  antiquity  and  form  a  traditionary  feeling,  when  you  have 
stripped  them  of  the  very  merit  which  recommends  them  to  the 
friends  of  the  Constitution  !  Well,  Sir,  it  is  polygamy  for  a 
man  to  marry  three  or  four  wives  ;  but  that  comparison  does 


LOWE  403 

not  do  justice  to  this  particular  case,  because  you  force  an 
aggravated  form  of  political  polygamy  by  asking  a  man  to 
marry  three  or  four  widows.  The  House  need  not  be  afraid 
of  my  pursuing  that  branch  of  the  subject.  The  best  that  can 
be  said  for  the  Ministerial  Bill — at  least  what  has  been  said  of  it 
— is,  that  it  is  intended  to  remove  anomalies.  I  really  know 
of  no  other  defence  that  is  offered  for  it  than  that.  Well,  Sir, 
mankind  will  tolerate  many  anomalies  if  they  are  old,  and  if, 
as  they  have  grown  up,  they  have  got  used  to  them.  They  will 
also  tolerate  anomahes  if  they  have  been  necessarily  occasioned 
by  the  desire  to  work  out  improvements.  But  when  people 
set  about  correcting  anomalies,  and  so  do  their  work  as  to  leave 
behind  them  and  to  create  even  worse  anomalies  than  any  they 
found  existing,  neither  gods  nor  men  can  stand  it.  Is  not  that 
the  case  here  ?  I  would  briefly  call  attention  to  two  or  three 
of  the  proposed  groups.  In  Cornwall,  you  have  Bodmin, 
Liskeard,  and  Launceston  with  18,000  inhabitants  between  them 
thrown  into  a  group  ;  but  the  towns  of  Redruth,  Penzance, 
and  others,  making  up  altogether  23,000  in  the  same  county, 
are  left  without  a  means  of  representation.  Then  in  the  county 
of  Devon,  you  are  to  have  Totnes  joined  with  Dartmouth 
and  Ashburton,  and,  by  putting  the  three  places  together, 
you  only  get  11,500  people;  but  there  is  Torquay,  with 
16,000,  that  you  leave  entirely  unrepresented.  I  should  not 
object  to  that,  because,  if  a  thing  works  well,  you  do  not  do 
wrong  in  leaving  it  alone,  but  if  you  do  begin  to  meddle  with  it, 
it  is  monstrous  to  turn  everything  upside  down,  and  then 
introduce  a  thousand  times  greater  anomalies  than  those  you 
have  removed.  People  will  bear  with  anomalies  that  are  old, 
historical,  and  familiar,  and  that,  after  all,  answer  some  useful 
end  ;  but  they  revolt  at  them  when  you  show  them  how 
flagrant  an  injustice  and  inequality  the  House  of  Commons 
or  the  Government  will  perpetrate  in  the  name  of  equality 
and  justice.  Then  there  is  the  group  of  Maldon  and  Harwich, 
thirty  miles  apart.  The  Chancellor  of  the  Duchy  of  Lancaster 
was  much  shocked  at  our  objecting  to  these  boroughs  being 
joined  in  this  extraordinary  way  ;  but,  Sir,  were  we  not  told 
by  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  that  these  things  were  done 
upon  geographical  considerations  ?  The  geographical  con- 
siderations referred  to  by  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer 
appear  to  me  to  mean,  as  interpreted  by  his  Bill,  that  the 


404  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

members  for  the  towns  to  be  grouped  should  learn  as  much 
geography  as  possible  by  having  as  large  distances  as  possible 
to  travel  over.  Then  we  have  Gloucestershire  and  Worcester- 
shire, Cirencester,  Tewkesbury,  and  Evesham,  with  16,000 
inhabitants  ;  but  in  Worcestershire  alone  you  have  Oldbury 
and  Stourbridge,  with  a  population  of  23,000,  which  remain 
utterly  unrepresented.  Again,  there  is  the  case  of  Wells  and 
Westbury,  which  scrape  together  11,000  inhabitants,  while 
between  the  two  we  find  Yeovil  with  8,000,  and  for  which 
nothing  is  done.  In  Wiltshire,  Chippenham,  Malmesbury, 
and  Calne,  have  19,000  inhabitants,  but  a  few  miles  from  Calne 
is  Trowbridge,  with  9,626  inhabitants,  the  second  town  in  the 
county,  which  you  leave  unrepresented.  In  Yorkshire, 
Richmond  and  Northallerton  scrape  together  9,000  inhabitants, 
while  for  Barnsley,  with  17,000,  Doncaster,  16,000,  and  Keigh- 
ley,  15,000  you  do  nothing  at  all.  Such  things  may  be  tolerable 
when  they  have  grown  up  with  you,  but  they  are  utterly 
intolerable  when  a  Government  interferes,  and  introduces  a 
measure  which  overlooks  such  cases  while  professing  to  take 
numbers  as  its  guide.  The  Government  have  repudiated 
geographical  considerations,  but  it  is  more  absurd  if  taken 
numerically.  Here  is,  however,  something  worse  than  an 
anomaly  ;  it  is  gross  injustice.  The  House  is  aware — with 
the  two  exceptions  of  Bewdley  and  Droitwich,  which  are 
probably  to  be  accounted  for  by  haste  and  carelessness,  the 
matter  being  a  small  one — that  all  the  boroughs  having  a  less 
population  than  8,000  inhabitants  are  dealt  with  in  some  way 
or  other.  There  are  two  ways  of  treating  these  boroughs. 
There  is  a  gentler  and  there  is  a  severer  form.  There  are  eight 
boroughs  which  are  picked  out  for  what  I  will  call  the  question 
ordinary — that  is,  losing  one  member,  and  the  remainder, 
a  very  large  number,  are  picked  out  and  formed  into  sixteen 
groups,  this  being  the  extraordinary  or  exquisite  torture,  being 
pounded  to  pieces,  brayed  in  a  mortar,  and  then  renovated. 
In  judging  of  the  treatment  which  these  boroughs  receive,  I 
think  some  principle  ought  to  be  observed.  The  geographical 
principle  has  been  ostentatiously  set  aside,  and  look  at  what 
has  happened  to  the  numerical  principle.  There  is  Newport, 
in  the  Isle  of  Wight,  with  8,000  inhabitants,  which  loses  only 
one  of  its  members,  and  is  not  grouped  ;  while  Bridport,  with 
7,819  inhabitants  loses  both  its  members  and  is  grouped. 


LOWE  405 

There  are  seven  boroughs  having  smaller  populations  than 
Bridport,  from  which  only  one  member  is  taken  ;  and  they  are 
not  grouped  ;  while  Bridport,  with  a  larger  population,  has 
both  its  members  taken  and  is  grouped.  Is  it  on  account  of 
geographical  considerations  that  it  is  coupled  with  Honiton, 
nineteen  miles  off  ?  [An  honourable  member :  "  Twenty-one  !  "] 
That  is  not  an  anomaly ;  it  is  simply  a  gross  injustice.  There  is 
Chippenham,  which,  as  everyone  knows,  is  arising  railway  town. 
Yet  it  is  grouped,  while  there  are  five  boroughs  which  contain 
fewer  inhabitants  than  Chippenham,  which  will  each  continue 
to  return  one  member.  Going  a  httle  further,  we  find  Dor- 
chester with  6,779  inhabitants,  and  three  boroughs  smaller 
than  itself.  Dorchester  loses  both  members,  while  three 
boroughs  smaller  than  Dorchester  retain  one  member  ;  they 
are  Hertford,  Great  Marlow,  and  Huntingdon.  I  can  simply 
attribute  the  cause  of  this  to  the  great  haste,  carelessness, 
and  inadvertency  which  have  characterised  this  measure.  I 
am  far  from  attributing  it  to  any  improper  motives.  I  have  not 
the  slightest  notion  of  anything  of  the  kind.  It  arises,  I  believe, 
from  the  mere  wantonness  or  carelessness  of  the  Government 
hurrying  forward  a  Bill  which  they  did  not  intend  to  bring  in, 
and  which  they  were  at  last  compelled  to  bring  in,  contrary  to 
all  declarations.  Between  Huntingdon,  the  smallest  borough 
that  loses  one  member,  and  Newport,  the  largest,  there  are 
seventeen  boroughs,  nine  of  them  returning  one  member  each 
and  eight  returning  two,  all  of  which  have  larger  populations 
than  Huntingdon,  which  is  allowed  to  retain  one  member, 
while  they  are  grouped.  The  reason  I  cannot  tell ;  but  there 
stands  the  anomaly.  This  grouping  of  boroughs  cannot, 
therefore,  I  say,  be  satisfactory  to  any  class  of  gentlemen. 
Of  course,  it  is  not  satisfactory  to  the  small  boroughs.  They 
are  the  material  out  of  which  other  people  are  to  be  com- 
pensated, and  of  course  no  one  likes  to  be  included  in  such  a 
process.  But  I  cannot  imagine  that  it  can  be  satisfactory 
to  gentlemen  who  call  for  these  measures  with  a  view  to  remove 
anomalies  and  promote  equahty,  and  make  the  Parliament 
a  more  accurate  representative  of  the  population  of  the  country, 
It  seems  to  me,  that  everybody  must  be  dissatisfied  with  such 
a  proceeding  as  this.  The  House  need  not  take  all  these  groups 
as  they  stand,  because  any  one  of  them  might  be  remedied 
in  committee  ;   but  the  whole  principle  of  the  thing  is  so  bad 


406  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

that  it  is  absolutely  impossible  to  deal  with  it  in  Committee 
at  all.  I  have  been  assuming,  hitherto,  that  we  have  good 
grounds  for  getting  these  forty-nine  members  that  are  wanted, 
but  that  depends  entirely  upon  the  use  the  Government  make 
of  them  when  they  have  them.  What  do  they  do  with  them  ? 
They  propose  to  give  out  of  these  forty-nine,  twenty-five  as 
third  members  to  counties,  and  four  as  third  members  to  large 
towns,  and  seven  to  Scotland.  I  deny  that  a  case  is  made  out 
for  this  arrangement.  Honourable  gentlemen  opposite,  with 
whom  I  sympathise  so  much  on  this  question,  may  not,  perhaps, 
agree  with  me  on  this  point.  I  maintain  that  it  is  a  mere 
illusion,  as  things  now  stand,  and  looking  at  these  two  measures 
as  a  whole,  to  talk  of  county  representation  ;  you  must  look 
at  these  two  things  together,  franchise  and  redistribution,  and 
you  must  remember  that  the  counties  you  give  these  members 
to  are  to  become  really  groups  of  towns.  Everyone  knows 
very  well  where  the  houses  between  £14  and  £50  are  to  be  found. 
They  are  to  be  found  not  in  the  rural  districts,  but  in  the  towns. 
What  you  are  preparing  to  do  for  the  county  members  is  to 
make  a  change  in  the  nature  of  their  constituency.  But  under 
the  system  proposed,  the  county  member  would  no  longer 
represent  a  constituency  which  from  its  present  and  peculiar 
character  can  easily  be  worked  as  a  whole.  When  you  lower 
the  franchise  as  proposed,  you  have  taken  the  power  out  of  the 
rural  districts  and  given  it  to  the  small  towns.  The  member 
will  therefore  have  to  reckon  with  so  many  small  towns,  with 
probably  an  attorney  in  each.  When  you  speak  of  giving  a 
third  member  to  counties,  you  must  remember  that  you  are 
talking  of  counties  not  as  they  are  now,  but  as  you  propose  to 
make  them.  It  is  an  illusion,  therefore,  to  say  that  a  great 
deal  is  done  for  the  rural  districts  in  thus  adding  members  to 
the  counties,  and  this  will  be  more  easily  understood  if  you 
have  not  forgotten  the  opinion  of  Lord  Russell,  who  says  how 
materially  the  small  boroughs  assist  the  counties  in  maintaining 
a  balance  of  power.  I  altogether  decline  to  be  caught  by  that 
bait.  But,  putting  that  aside,  on  what  principle  are  we  to 
give  three  members  to  counties  ?  It  has  been  the  practice 
to  give  two  members  to  counties  from  time  immemorial  with 
a  slight  exception  at  the  time  of  the  Reform,  which  is  by  no 
means  generally  approved.  I  am  willing  to  accept  the  fact 
without  stopping  to  inquire  too  curiously  whether  this  number 


LOWE  407 

was  fixed  upon  because  they  slept  in  the  same  bed  or  rode  on 
the  same  horse  on  their  journeys  to  London.  But  if  you  come 
to  make  it  a  general  practice  to  give  three  members  to  counties, 
I  think  we  are  entitled  to  ask  upon  what  principle  this  is  to  be 
done.  For  my  own  part,  I  can  suggest  no  other  principle 
than  the  mere  worship  of  numbers.  It  is  quite  a  new  principle 
that  numbers  should  not  only  be  represented  in  this  House 
because  they  are  important  but  that  that  importance  should 
entitle  them  to  more  votes.  The  House  will  recollect  that 
every  member  has  two  separate  and  distinct  duties  to  perform. 
He  is  the  representative  of  the  borough  which  sends  him  to 
Parliament,  and  he  has  to  look  after  its  local  interests  to  the 
best  of  his  power.  That  is  a  small  and,  in  the  mild  and  just 
times  in  which  we  live,  generally  a  comparatively  easy  duty  ; 
but  his  greater  and  more  pre-eminent  duty  is  to  look  after  the 
affairs  of  the  empire.  The  real  use,  therefore,  of  an  electoral 
district,  be  it  small  or  large,  is  one  more  important  than  the 
adequate  representation  of  the  numbers  of  any  particular  place, 
so  long  as  they  are  represented.  It  is,  that  it  should  send  to 
Parliament  the  persons  best  calculated  to  make  laws  and 
perform  the  other  functions  demanded  of  the  members  of  this 
House.  This  seems  to  me  to  go  directly  against  the  principle 
that  these  great  communities  are  not  only  entitled  to  send 
competent  gentlemen  to  represent  their  affairs,  but  to  send  as 
many  members  as  will  correspond  with  their  weight  in  the 
country.  If  once  you  grant  this  principle  you  are  advancing 
far  on  the  road  to  electoral  districts  and  numerical  equality. 
I  say  this  is  the  mere  principle  of  numbers.  If  the  principle 
be  once  established,  it  is  very  easy  to  give  it  extension. 
Scarcely  a  meeting  is  assembled  on  this  subject,  without  some 
man  getting  up  and  complaining  that  the  member  for  a  small 
borough,  myself,  for  instance,  should  have  a  vote  which  will 
counterbalance  the  vote  of  the  representative  of  a  borough 
containing  200,000  or  300,000.  If  it  was  a  fight  for  the  good 
things  of  this  world  between  Calne  and  Birmingham,  I  could 
understand  how  such  a  principle  might  be  adopted  ;  but  when 
it  is  a  question  of  making  the  laws  and  influencing  the  destinies 
of  this  country,  the  question  is  not  which  is  the  larger  body 
but  which  best  discharges  its  duty  in  sending  members  to 
Parliament.  I  cannot  find  a  trace  of  that  principle  in  the 
whole  of  this  Bill,  for  it  is  clear  that  there  is  no  such  idea  in 


408  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

giving  these  three  members  to  counties.  They  are  mere  con- 
cessions to  the  importance  of  the  constituencies  to  which  they 
are  given  while  the  small  boroughs  are  grouped  in  a  manner 
likely  to  promote  mediocrity,  because  gentlemen  of  shining 
qualities  and  useful  attainments  will  scarcely  be  able  to  con- 
test them,  unless  possessed  of  great  wealth.  I  cannot  bring 
my  mind  to  the  idea  of  giving  three  members  to  those  large 
constituencies.  We  should,  on  the  whole,  be  far  better  without 
those  twenty-nine  members.  We  had  better  leave  matters 
alone,  if  we  can  find  no  better  use  for  them.  Now,  I  have  gone 
through  what  I  have  to  say  upon  the  details  of  this  Bill ;  and 
perhaps  the  House  will  allow  me  to  sum  up  what  I  think  of 
the  whole  effect  of  the  ministerial  measure.  You  say  how 
frightful  the  expenses  of  elections  are,  and  declare  that  they 
are  a  cankerworm  in  the  very  heart  of  the  Constitution.  Yet 
what  is  the  effect  of  this  Bill  with  regard  to  the  legitimate 
expenses  of  elections  ?  The  Government  are  proposing  to 
increase  the  size  of  the  constituency  of  every  borough  in  the 
Kingdom.  Will  that  decrease  expense  ?  They  propose  to 
disfranchise  small  boroughs ;  and  instead  of  sub-dividing 
districts  with  a  view  to  make  more  manageable  constituencies, 
except  in  the  case  of  the  Tower  Hamlets  and  South  Lancashire, 
a  senseless  homage  is  paid  to  mere  numbers,  adding  to  that 
which  is  already  too  much.  Then  there  is  another  thing.  It 
is  the  duty  of  every  man  who  calls  himself  a  statesman,  to 
study  the  signs  of  the  times,  and  make  himself  master,  as  far 
as  he  can,  of  the  tendencies  of  society.  What  are  those  signs 
and  tendencies  ?  I  suppose  we  shall  none  of  us  doubt  that 
they  are  tending  more  or  less  in  the  direction,  as  I  said  before, 
of  uniformity  and  democracy.  What  then,  is  the  duty  of  a 
wise  statesman  under  such  circumstances  ?  Is  it  to  stimulate 
the  tendencies  which  are  already  in  full  force  and  activity,  or 
is  it  not  rather,  if  he  cannot  leave  matters  alone,  to  see  if  he 
cannot  find  some  palliative  ?  If  he  cannot  prevent  the  change 
which  stronger  powers  are  working,  should  he  not  make  that 
change  as  smooth  as  possible  and  not  by  any  means  accelerate 
it  ?  But  the  whole  of  this  Bill  is  not  in  any  way  of  moderating, 
but  of  stimulating,  existing  tendencies.  It  is  not  always  wise 
(and  the  observation  is  as  old  as  Aristotle)  to  make  a  law  too 
accurately  in  correspondence  with  the  times,  or  the  genius  of 
the  Government  under  which  you  live.     The  best  law  that 


LOWE  409 

could  be  made  for  the  United  States  would  not  be  one  purely 
democratic.  The  best  law  for  the  French  Government  to 
enact  is  not  one  of  an  ultra-monarchical  character.  There  is 
sound  wisdom  in  this,  and  it  should  be  kept  well  in  mind  ; 
but  it  seems  to  have  been  by  no  means  considered  by  the 
framers  of  the  crude  measure  before  us. 

"  But  our  new  Jehu  spurs  the  hot-mouth  horse, 
Instructs  him  well  to  know  his  native  force, 
To  take  the  bit  between  his  teeth,  and  fly- 
To  the  next  headlong  steep  of  anarchy." 

Passing  to  another  point,  I  have  to  remind  you  that  the 
Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  frightened  us  the  other  day  by 
giving  us  a  prose  version  of  Byron's  poem  on  "  Darkness," 
when  we  were  told  that  our  coal  was  all  going  to  be  consumed, 
and  then  we  were  to  die  like  the  last  man  and  woman  of  our 
mutual  hideousness.  Upon  that  the  right  honourable  gentle- 
man founded  a  proposition,  and  never  was  so  practical  a 
proposition  worked  out  upon  so  speculative  a  basis.  You 
will  have  no  coal  in  100  years,  he  says,  and  therefore  pay  your 
debts  ;  and,  addressing  honourable  gentlemen  opposite,  he 
says,  "  Commerce  may  die,  and  manufactures  may  die — and 
die  they  will — but  land  will  remain,  and  you  will  be  saddled 
with  the  debt."  That  was  the  language  of  the  right  honourable 
gentleman.  Now,  if  we  are  to  pay  terminable  annuities  on 
the  strength  of  the  loss  of  our  coal,  do  not  you  think  we  may 
well  apply  the  same  dogma  to  this  proposed  Reform  of  our 
constitution  ?  What  is  the  right  honourable  gentleman 
seeking  to  do  by  this  Bill  ?  He  is  seeking  to  take  away  power 
of  control  from  the  land — from  that  which  is  to  remain  when 
all  those  fine  things  I  have  mentioned  have  passed  away  in 
the  future — from  that  which  will  be  eventually  saddled  with 
the  whole  burden  of  the  debt,  and  to  place  it  in  these  fugitive 
and  transitory  elements  which,  according  to  the  account  he 
gave  us,  a  breath  has  made  and  a  breath  can  unmake.  I 
ask,  is  that,  upon  the  right  honourable  gentleman's  own 
showing,  sound  prospective  wisdom  ?  I  do  not  deal  myself 
with  such  remote  contingencies  ;  I  offer  this  simply  as  an 
argumentum  ad  hominem.  I  should  like  to  hear  the  answer. 
I  have  a  word  to  say  with  regard  to  the  franchise.  We  have 
had  a  little  light  let  in  upon  this  subject.  We  are  offered  as 
you  all  know,  a  £1  franchise.     It  is  defended  by  the  Chancellor 


410  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

of  the  Exchequer  upon  two  grounds — flesh  and  blood,  and 
fathers  of  famihes.  The  £1  franchise  is  defended  by  the 
honourable  member  for  Birmingham  upon  another  ground  ; 
he  takes  his  stand  on  the  ancient  hues  of  the  British  Con- 
stitution. I  will  suggest  to  him  one  line  of  the  British 
Constitution,  and  I  should  like  to  know  whether  he  means 
to  stand  by  it.  In  his  campaign  of  1858,  in  which  he  had 
taken  some  liberties  with  the  Crown,  and  spoke  with  some 
disrespect  of  the  temporal  peers,  he  came  to  the  spiritual  peers, 
and  this  was  the  language  he  employed.  He  said  "  That 
creature  of  monstrous — nay,  of  adulterous  birth."  I  suppose 
there  is  no  part  of  the  British  Constitution  much  more  ancient 
than  the  spiritual  peers.  Is  that  one  of  the  lines  the  honourable 
gentleman  takes  his  stand  upon  ?  Again,  the  Attorney- 
General,  having  recovered  from  the  blow  the  grouping  of  Rich- 
mond must  have  been  to  him,  has  become  a  convert,  and,  like 
most  converts,  he  is  an  enthusiast.  He  tells  us  that  he  is  for 
the  £1  franchise  because  he  is  in  favour,  like  the  honourable 
member  for  Birmingham,  of  household  suffrage.  These  are 
the  reasons  which  are  given  in  order  to  induce  us  to  adopt  the 
£1  franchise.  I  ask  the  House,  is  there  any  encouragement  in 
any  of  these  arguments  to  adopt  it  ?  The  Chancellor  of  the 
Exchequer  says  it  is  flesh  and  blood  ;  it  is  a  very  small  instal- 
ment of  flesh  and  blood,  and  none  can  doubt  that  anyone 
asking  for  it  upon  that  ground  only  asks  for  it  as  a  means  to 
get  more  flesh  and  blood.  The  honourable  member  for  Bir- 
mingham stands  upon  the  Constitution,  and  he  puts  me  in 
mind  of  the  American  squib,  which  says  : 

"  Here  we  stand  on  the  Constitution,  by  thunder, 
It  is  a  fact  on  which  there  are  bushels  of  proofs, 
For  how  could  we  trample  upon  it,  I  wonder. 
If  it  wasn't  continually  under  our  hoofs  !  " 

Well,  the  honourable  gentleman  asks  the  £7  upon  the  ground 
that  it  is  constitutional — that  is,  upon  the  ground  of  household 
suffrage.  He  wants  it  with  a  view  of  letting  us  down  gently  to 
household  suffrage.  The  Attorney-General,  of  course,  means  the 
same.  In  fact,  he  said  we  ought  to  do  it  at  once.  But  we  see 
what  a  condemnation  the  Attorney-General  passes  upon  the  Gov- 
ernment of  which  he  forms  a  part.  He  says,  "  You  have  taken 
your  stand  upon  the  £7  franchise.  The  ground  you  have  taken 
is  so  slippery  and  unsafe,  so  utterly  untenable,  that  I  would 


LOWE  411 

rather  go  down  to  household  suffrage  at  once — to  the  veriest 
cabin  with  a  door  and  a  chimney  to  it  that  can  be  called  a  house. 
There  I  may,  perhaps,  *  touch  ground.'  "  What  encourage- 
ment do  these  gentlemen  give  us  to  take  the  £1  franchise  ? 
Yet  the  honourable  member  for  Westminster  says  that  £1  is 
no  great  extension,  and  out  of  all  comparison  with  universal 
suffrage  ;  so  he  excuses  himself  for  having  thrown  overboard 
all  the  safeguards  which  he  has  recommended  should  be 
girt  round  universal  suffrage.  I  do  not  object  to  his  throwing 
them  overboard.  Checks  and  safeguards,  in  my  opinion, 
generally  require  other  safeguards  to  take  care  of  them.  The 
first  use  universal  suffrage  would  make  of  its  universadity  would 
be  to  throw  the  safeguards  over  altogether.  He  says  the  £1 
franchise  has  nothing  to  do  with  safeguards.  The  Chancellor 
of  the  Exchequer  goes  to  universal  suffrage,  and  the  other  two 
to  whom  I  have  referred  profess  they  go  to  household  suffrage. 
Do  you  think  you  could  stop  there  ?  You  talk  of  touching 
ground — would  it  be  solid  ground  or  quicksand  ?  You  think 
that  when  you  have  got  down  to  that,  you  can  create  a  sort  of 
household  aristocracy.  The  thing  is  ridiculous.  The  working 
classes  protest  even  now  against  what  they  call  a  brick 
and  mortar  suffrage.  They  say,  "  A  man's  a  man  for  a'  that." 
The  Bill  appears  to  me  to  be  the  work  of  men  who  : 

"  At  once  all  law,  all  settlement  control, 
And  mend  the  parts  by  ruin  of  the  whole. 
The  tampering  world  is  subject  to  this  curse, 
To  physic  their  disease  into  a  worse." 

What  shall  we  gain  by  it  ?  I  have  not,  I  think,  quibbled  with 
the  question  ;  I  have  striven  to  do  what  the  Government  have 
evaded  doing — to  extract  great  principles  out  of  this  medley 
(for  medley  it  is)  composed  partly  out  of  a  veneration  for 
numbers  and  partly  out  of  a  sort  of  traditional  veneration  for 
old  boroughs,  which  are  to  be  preserved  after  what  is  beneficial 
in  them  has  been  taken  from  them.  Then  we  have  to  consider 
the  proposed  county  franchise,  founded,  as  has  been  said, 
upon  utter  ignorance.  It  is  quite  evident  that  this  Bill  has 
been  framed  without  information,  because  the  Chancellor  of 
the  Exchequer,  as  is  well  known,  has  told  us  that  the  only  copy 
he  had — I  may  be  right ;  at  any  rate,  I  cannot  be  wrong  until 
I  have  stated  it  somehow.  The  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer 
told  us  that  the  only  copy  he  had  of  those  statistics  was  the 


412  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

one  that  he  was  obliged  to  lay  on  the  table  of  the  House.  If 
I  am  wrong,  let  the  right  honourable  gentleman  correct  me. 

The  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  :  I  spoke  of  the  last 
absolutely  finished  copy.  The  substance  of  those  statistics, 
as  far  as  regarded  the  general  bases  of  the  measure,  had  been 
in  our  hands  for  weeks  before  that  time,  but  was  not  in  a  state 
to  be  placed  on  the  table  of  the  House  until  all  the  columns 
had  been  filled  in. 

Mr.  Lowe  :  Well,  Sir,  that  finished  document  is  what  I 
call  a  copy.  It  may  be  that  the  Bill  was  originally  drawn  for 
£6  and  ^12,  and  that  at  the  last  moment  £7  and  £14  were 
substituted  and  that  it  was  regarded  as  a  matter  of  little 
consequence  what  the  exact  figures  were.  As  to  the  element 
of  time,  I  suppose,  however,  I  must  not  say  anything,  or  the 
right  honourable  gentleman  will  be  angry  with  me.  The 
twelve  nights  that  he  gave  us  for  the  Franchise  Bill  are  pretty 
well  gone,  and  we  have  now  got  what  he  never  contemplated 
we  should  have,  a  Redistribution  Bill  as  well.  I  suppose  I 
had  better  say  nothing  about  the  support  the  Government 
wiU  have,  or  I  had  better  veil  it  in  a  dead  language  and  say. 
Idem  trecente  Juravimus.  I  would  ask  the  Chancellor  of  the 
Exchequer  how  he  can  expect  to  get  the  Bill  through  Committee 
under  those  circumstances,  bearing  in  mind  that  most  of  the 
newspapers  that  lay  claim  to  intelligence  and  write  for  educated 
persons,  have  begun  with  rather  vague  notions  of  liberality, 
have  written  themselves  fairly  out  of  them,  and  that  educated 
opinion  is  generally  adverse  to  this  measure.  These,  Sir,  are 
the  prospects  we  have  before  us.  We  have  a  measure  of  the 
most  ill-considered  and  inadequate  nature,  which  cannot  be 
taken  as  it  is,  and  which,  as  I  understand  it,  is  based  on  prin- 
ciples so  absolutely  subversive  and  destructive — the  grouping, 
for  instance — that  if  we  were  ever  so  anxious  to  aid  the  Govern- 
ment, we  could  not  accept  it.  Well,  then.  Sir,  what  objection 
can  there  be  to  the  advice  given  to  the  Government  by  my 
honourable  friend,  the  member  for  Dumfries — no  hostile 
adviser — to  put  off  the  question  for  another  year,  and  give  the 
educated  opinion  of  the  country  time  to  decide  on  this  matter  ? 
What  are  the  objections  to  such  a  course  ?  There  are  only  two, 
that  I  know  of.  One  is,  that  honourable  gentlemen  are  anxious 
and  very  naturally  anxious  for  a  settlement.  But  are  there 
materials  for  a  settlement  in  the  Bill  before  us  ?     How,  for 


LOWE  413 

instance,  can  you  settle  the  grouping  ?  If  you  retain  the 
principle  on  which  the  Government  act,  that  of  grouping 
those  boroughs  that  have  already  members,  you  may  do  a 
little  better  than  they  have  done,  because  they  seem  to  have 
gone  gratuitously  wrong  ;  but  you  cannot  make  an  effective 
measure  of  it,  and  one  that  would  stand.  I  am  convinced 
it  would  generate  far  more  discontent  than  it  allayed,  and 
create  far  more  inequality  than  it  seeks  to  remove.  Then, 
the  giving  constituencies  three  members,  is  a  principle  of  the 
greatest  gravity  and  weight,  not  only  for  its  actual  results,  but 
because  it  really  concedes  the  principle  of  electoral  districts. 
That,  surely,  is  a  matter  not  to  be  lightly  disposed  of  ;  nor  do 
I  see  how  it  can  be  compromised  ;  because  if  the  Government 
gives  it  up,  it  must  select  some  other  appointment ;  which 
can  only  be  done  by  creating  other  electoral  districts.  Then, 
as  regards  the  franchise  ;  no  doubt  that  we  could  get  through, 
because  it  would  only  be  dealing  with  a  figure,  and  I  dare  say 
there  are  many  honourable  gentlemen  whose  opinions  are 
entitled  to  great  weight,  who  would  like  a  compromise  on  the 
franchise.  But  then  you  have  to  consider  this,  that  a  com- 
promise on  the  franchise  is  a  capitulation.  Take  what  I  said 
of  the  opinions  of  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  the  honour- 
able member  for  Birmingham,  and  the  Attorney-General,  and 
it's  just  as  true  of  £8  as  of  £7,  and  of  £9  as  of  £8.  If  you  once 
give  up  the  notion  of  standing  on  the  existing  settlement,  so 
far  as  the  mere  money  qualification  for  the  franchise  is  con- 
cerned, whatever  other  qualifications  you  may  add  to  it,  you 
give  up  the  whole  principle.  As  the  Attorney-General  himself 
sees,  you  must  go  down  to  household  suffrage  at  last — whether 
any  further  is  a  matter  on  which  men  may  differ,  though,  for 
my  part,  I  think  you  would  have  to  go  farther.  I  must  say, 
therefore,  that  I  can  see  no  materials  for  a  compromise  in  the 
borough  franchise  part  of  this  Bill,  and  I  come  therefore  to  the 
conclusion  that  :  desirable  as  it  would  be,  weary  as  we  all  are 
of  the  subject,  and  anxious  as  we  all  are  to  get  rid  of  it,  there 
is  no  place  for  a  compromise.  The  divergence  is  too  wide,  the 
principles  are  too  weighty,  and  the  time  is  too  short,  the 
information  is  too  defective,  the  subject  is  too  iU-considered. 
Well,  then,  the  other  objection  to  a  postponement  is  that, 
as  my  right  honourable  friend,  the  Secretary  of  the  Colonies, 
told  us,  the  honour  of  the  Government  would  not  permit  them 


414  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

to  take  that  course.  Now  I  think  we  have  heard  too  much 
about  the  honour  of  the  Government.  The  honour  of  the 
Government  obhged  them  to  bring  in  a  Reform  Bill  in  1860. 
It  was  withdrawn  under  circumstances  which  I  need  not  allude 
to,  and  as  soon  as  it  was  withdrawn,  the  honour  of  the  Govern- 
ment went  to  sleep.  It  slept  for  five  years.  Session  after 
Session,  it  never  so  much  as  winked.  As  long  as  Lord  Palmer- 
ston  lived,  honour  slept  soundly,  but  when  Lord  Palmerston 
died,  and  Lord  Russell  succeeded  by  seniority  to  his  place, 
the  *'  sleeping  beauty  "  woke  up.  As  long  as  the  Government 
was  kept  together  by  having  no  Reform  Bill,  honour  did  not 
ask  for  a  Reform  Bill ;  but  when,  owing  to  the  predilections  of 
Lord  Russell,  the  Government  was  best  kept  together  by 
having  a  Reform  Bill,  honour  became  querulous  and  anxious 
for  a  Reform  Bill.  But  that.  Sir,  is  a  very  peculiar  kind  of 
honour.     It  puts  me  in  mind  of  Hotspur's  description  : 

"  By  Heaven,  methinks  it  were  an  easy  leap, 
To  pluck  bright  honour  from  the  pale-faced  moon, 
Or  dive  into  the  bottom  of  the  deep. 
Where  fathom-line  could  never  touch  the  ground. 
And  pluck  up  drowned  honour  by  the  locks  : 
So  he  that  does  redeem  her  thence  might  wear 
Without  corrival  all  her  dignities." 

That  is,  as  long  as  honour  gives  nothing,  she  is  allowed  to 
sleep,  and  nobody  cares  about  her  ;  but  when  it  is  a  question 
of  wearing  "  without  corrival  all  her  dignities,"  honour  becomes 
a  most  important  and  exacting  personage,  and  all  considerations 
of  policy  and  expediency  have  to  be  sacrificed  to  her  imperious 
demands.  But  then  there  is  another  difficulty.  The  Govern- 
ment have  told  us  that  they  are  bound  in  this  matter.  Now, 
"  bound  "  means  contracted,  and  I  want  to  know  with  whom 
they  contracted  ?  Was  it  with  the  last  House  of  Commons  ? 
But  the  plaintiff  is  dead,  and  has  left  no  executor.  Was  it 
with  the  people  at  large  ?  Well,  wait  till  the  people  demand 
the  fulfilment  of  the  contract.  But  it  was  with  neither  the 
one  nor  the  other,  because  the  Under-Secretary  for  the  Colonies 
let  the  cat  out  of  the  bag.  He  said  that  he  himself  called  upon 
Earl  Russell  to  redeem  their  pledge.  I  suppose  he  is  Attorney- 
General  for  the  people  of  England.  He  called  upon  the 
Government  to  redeem  their  pledge.  Now,  one  often  hears  of 
people  in  insolvent  circumstances,  who  want  an  excuse  to 


LOWE  415 

become  bankrupt,  getting  a  friendly  creditor  to  sue  them. 
And  this  demand  of  the  honourable  gentleman  has  something 
of  the  same  appearance.  But  there  has  been  a  httle  more 
honour  in  the  case.  The  Government  raised  the  banner  in 
this  House,  and  said  they  were  determined  we  should  pass  the 
Franchise  Bill  without  having  seen  the  Redistribution  Bill. 
Well,  they  carried  their  point,  but  carried  it  by  that  sort  of 
majority,  that,  though  they  gained  the  victory,  they  scarcely 
got  the  honour  of  the  operation,  and  if  there  was  any  doubt 
about  that,  I  think  there  was  no  great  accession  of  honour 
gained  last  Monday  in  the  division,  when  the  House  really  by 
their  vote  took  the  management  of  the  Committee  out  of  the 
hands  of  the  Executive.  All  these  things  do  not  matter  much 
to  ordinary  mortals,  but  to  people  of  a  Castilian  turn  of  mind 
they  are  very  serious.  Sir,  I  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that 
there  must  be  two  kinds  of  honour,  and  the  only  consolation 
I  can  administer  to  the  Government  is  in  the  words  of 
Hudibras  : 

"If  he  that's  in  battle  slain 

Be  on  the  bed  of  honour  lain. 

Then  he  that's  beaten  may  be  said 

To  lie  on  honour's  truckle  bed." 

Well,  Sir,  as  it  seems  to  be  the  fashion  to  give  the  Government 
advice,  I  will  offer  them  a  piece  of  advice,  and  I  will  give  them 
Falstaff' s  opinion  of  honour  : 

"  What  is  honour  ? a  trim  reckoning  ....  I'll   none   of 

it.     Honour  is  a  mere  'scutcheon,  and  so  ends  my  catechism." 

Sir,  I  am  firmly  convinced — and  I  wish,  if  possible,  to  attract  the 
serious  attention  of  the  House  for  a  few  moments — that  it  is 
not  the  wish  of  this  country  to  do  that  which  this  Bill  seeks  to 
do.  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  main  object  of  this  Bill  is  to 
render  it  impossible  for  any  other  Government  than  a  Liberal 
one  to  exist  in  this  country  for  the  future.  I  do  not  say  that 
this  object  would  appear  an  illegitimate  one  in  the  eyes  of 
heated  partisans,  and  in  moments  of  conflict,  for  we  are  all  of 
us  naturally  impatient  of  opposition  and  contradiction,  and  I 
dare  say  such  an  idea  has  occurred  to  many  Governments  before 
the  present,  and  to  many  Parliaments  before  this  ;  but  I 
do  say  that  it  is  a  short-sighted  and  foolish  idea,  because  if 
we  could  succeed  in  utterly  obliterating  and  annihilating  the 
power  of  honourable  gentlemen  opposite,  all  we  should  reap 


416  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

as  the  reward  of  our  success  would  be  the  annihilation  of 
ourselves.  The  history  of  this  country — the  glorious  and  happy 
history  of  this  country — has  been  a  conflict  between  two 
aristocratic  parties,  and  if  ever  one  should  be  destroyed,  the 
other  would  be  left  face  to  face  with  a  party  not  aristocratic, 
but  purely  democratic.  The  honourable  member  for  Birming- 
ham said  with  great  truth  the  other  day,  that  if  the  purely 
aristocratic  and  the  purely  democratic  elements  should 
come  into  conflict,  the  victory  would,  in  all  probability,  be  on 
the  side  of  Democracy.  The  annihilation  of  one  of  the  aristo- 
cratic parties — and  I  know  it  is  in  the  minds  of  many,  though, 
of  course,  it  is  not  openly  avowed — would  be  a  folly  like  that 
of  a  bird  which,  feeling  the  resistance  the  air  offers  to  its  flight, 
imagines  how  well  it  would  fly  if  there  was  no  air  at  all,  for- 
getting that  the  very  air  which  resists  it  also  supports  it,  and 
ministers  to  it  the  breath  of  hfe,  and  that  if  it  got  quit  of  that 
air  it  would  immediately  perish.  So  it  is  with  political  parties  ^ 
they  not  only  oppose,  they  support,  strengthen  and  invigorate 
each  other,  and  I  shall  never,  therefore,  be  a  party  to  any 
measure,  come  from  whichever  side  of  the  House  it  may,  which 
seeks  as  to  impair  and  destroy  the  balance  of  parties  existing 
in  this  country,  that  whichever  party  were  in  office  should  be 
free  from  the  check  of  a  vigorous  opposition,  directed  by  men 
of  the  same  stamp  and  position  as  those  to  whom  they  were 
opposed.  I  do  not  believe  that  is  an  object  of  this  Bill  which 
the  people  of  this  country  will  approve,  nor  do  I  believe  that 
they  wish  materially  to  diminish  the  influence  of  honourable 
gentlemen  opposite.  There  are  plenty  of  gentlemen  who  do 
wish  it,  but  I  do  not  believe  it  is  the  wish  of  the  country,  and 
therefore  I  believe  they  would  have  looked  with  much  greater 
satisfaction  on  the  principle  of  grouping,  if  it  had  not  been  so 
studiously  confined  to  represented  boroughs,  and  if,  instead 
of  first  swamping  the  counties  with  a  low  franchise,  and  then 
offering  the  illusory  boon  of  three  members,  it  had  relieved  the 
county  constituencies  of  considerable  portions  of  the  great 
towns  by  an  efficient  Boundaries  Bill,  and  had  erected  some 
of  the  towns  which  now  almost  engross  the  county  representa- 
tion into  distinct  constituencies.  And  while  passing  by  that 
point,  let  me  say  that  the  provisions  with  regard  to  boundaries 
appear  to  me  to  be  one  of  the  most  delusive  parts  of  the  whole 
Bill,  because  the  effect  of  them  is  that  no  suburbs  not  now 


LOWE  417 

included  in  the  municipal  district  can  be  included  in  the 
Parliamentary  district,  unless  those  who  live  in  these  suburbs 
are  content  to  saddle  themselves  with  municipal  taxation. 
I  do  not  believe  the  country  wishes  to  see  the  door  to  talent 
shut  more  closely  than  it  is,  or  this  House  become  an  assembly 
of  milhonaires.  I  do  not  beheve  the  country  would  look  with 
satisfaction  on  the  difference  of  tone  within  the  House  which 
must  be  produced  if  the  elements  of  which  it  is  the  result  are 
altered  ;  nor  do  I  beheve  that  it  will  look  with  satisfaction  on 
that  inevitable  change  of  the  Constitution  which  must  occur 
if  these  projects  are  carried  into  execution — a  change  breaking 
the  close  connection  between  the  executive  Government  and 
the  House  of  Commons.  I  believe  sincerely  that  this  House 
is  anxious  to  put  down  corruption,  and  I  will  say  again,  at  any 
risk  of  obloquy,  that  it  is  not  the  way  to  put  down  corruption 
to  thrust  the  franchise  into  poorer  hands.  If  we  are  really 
desirous  of  achieving  this  result  there  is  but  one  way  that  I 
know  of,  and  that  is  by  taking  care  that  you  trust  the  franchise 
only  to  those  persons  whose  position  in  life  gives  security  that 
they  are  above  the  grosser  forms  of  corruption.  And  if  you 
do  prefer  to  have  a  lower  constituency,  you  must  look  the  thing 
in  the  face — you  will  be  deliberately  perpetuating  corruption 
for  the  sake  of  what  you  consider  the  greater  good  of  making 
the  constituencies  larger.  These  are  things  which  I  do  not 
believe  the  people  of  this  country  wish  to  have.  And,  therefore, 
I  believe  you  will  be  acting  in  accordance  with  sound  wisdom 
and  the  enlightened  public  opinion  of  the  country  by  deferring 
this  measure  for  another  year.  I  press  most  earnestly  for  delay. 
The  matter  is  of  inexpressible  importance  ;  any  error  is  abso- 
lutely irretrievable  ;  it  is  the  last  thing  in  the  world  which 
ought  to  be  dealt  with  rashly  or  incautiously.  We  are  dealing 
not  merely  with  the  administration,  not  merely  with  a  party 
— no,  not  even  with  the  Constitution  of  the  Kingdom.  To 
our  hands  at  this  moment  is  intrusted  the  noble  and  sacred 
future  of  free  and  self-determined  government  all  over  the 
world.  We  are  about  to  surrender  certain  good  for  more  than 
doubtful  change  ;  we  are  about  to  barter  maxims  and  traditions 
that  have  never  failed,  for  theories  and  doctrines  that  never 
have  succeeded.  Democracy  you  may  have  at  any  time. 
Night  and  day  the  gate  is  open  that  leads  to  that  bare  and  level 
plain,  where  every  ants'  nest  is  a  mountain  and  every  thistle 
27— (2170) 


418  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

a  forest  tree.  But  a  Government  such  as  England  has,  a 
Government  the  work  of  no  human  hand,  but  which  has  grown 
up  the  imperceptible  aggregation  of  centuries — this  is  a  thing 
which  we  only  can  enjoy,  which  we  cannot  impart  to  others, 
and  which,  once  lost,  we  cannot  recover  for  ourselves.  Because 
you  have  contrived  to  be  at  once  dilatory  and  hasty  here- 
tofore, that  is  no  reason  for  pressing  forward  rashly  and 
improvidently  now.  We  are  not  agreed  upon  details,  we  have 
not  come  to  any  accord  upon  principles.  To  precipitate  a 
decision  in  the  case  of  a  single  human  life  would  be  cruel.  It 
is  more  than  cruel — it  is  parricide  in  the  case  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, which  is  the  life  and  soul  of  this  great  nation.  If  it  is 
to  perish,  as  all  human  things  must  perish,  give  it  at  any  rate 
time  to  gather  its  robes  about  it,  and  to  fall  with  decency  and 
deliberation. 

"  To-morrow  ! 

Oh,  that's  sudden  !    spare  it !    spare  it ! 

It  ought  not  so  to  die." 


GLADSTONE 

Gladstone  had  all  the  qualities  of  an  orator,  except  humour. 
Irony  was  his  only  form  of  deviation  from  perfect  seriousness, 
and  the  ironical  parts  of  his  speeches  are  commonly  the  least 
impressive.  He  had  in  an  extraordinary  degree  the  powers  of 
argument,  illustration,  persuasion,  and  analysis.  A  melodious 
and  most  flexible  voice,  into  which  he  could  put  every  tone  of 
which  that  organ  is  capable,  was  always  at  his  command.  His 
style  of  speaking  was  always  that  best  adapted  to  the  occasion. 
Just  as  his  most  elaborate  sentence  always  escaped  confusion, 
so  his  subtlest  train  of  reasoning  brought  his  hearers,  some- 
times by  an  imperceptible  process,  to  the  goal  at  which  he 
desired  them  to  arrive.  Few  men's  speeches  are  so  difficult 
to  describe.  For  one  of  his  oratorical  secrets  was  to  vary 
argument  by  digression,  and  to  avoid  tedium  by  surprise. 
He  never  forgot  his  main  purpose,  and  yet  he  took  care 
to  diversify  the  business  of  accomplishing  it  by  variations 
of  his  theme  which  were  auxihary  to  the  object  he  had  in 
hand.  His  speeches  were  those  of  a  great  artist,  and  at 
the  same  time  they  were  never  made  for  their  own  sake. 
He  could  adorn  the  simplest  topic  without  straying  from  the 
path  which  led  from  his  premises  to  his  conclusion.  Nothing 
that  he  treated  was  dry  while  he  treated  it,  for  the  relation 
between  the  parts  of  a  subject  and  the  whole  was  so  adjusted 
as  to  have  an  almost  dramatic  unity.  It  was  this  wonderful 
power  of  combining  workmanlike  efficiency  with  literary  effect 
that  gave  him  such  an  extraordinary  influence  with  educated 
society  and  with  practical  men.  He  never  lost  his  hold  either 
upon  the  intellect  or  upon  the  taste  when  his  object  was  to 
attract  the  attention,  and  to  con\'ince  the  mind. 

It  has  been  said  that  Gladstone's  greatest  argumentative 
speech  was  made  on  the  taxation  of  charities  in  1863.     This 

419 


420  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

speech  is  certainly  a  very  remarkable  effort,  though  it  had  no 
practical  success  at  the  time.  Gladstone  had  the  power  of 
throwing  over  the  dry  details  of  finance  a  glamour  which 
invested  them  with  all  the  charm  of  intellectual  fascination. 
He  could  deal  with  them  in  such  a  masterly  way  that  they 
seemed  to  illuminate  the  reasoning  of  which  they  were  a 
part.  It  was  this  gift  of  combining  illustration  and  logic 
that  made  him  such  a  master  of  debate.  He  knew  exactly 
how  far  to  employ  with  advantage  each  particular  resource 
of  his  mind.  His  speeches  never  lose,  but  always  gain,  by 
the  variation  of  treatment  which  they  adopt.  The  difficulty 
of  choosing  between  them  is  that  they  all,  though  of  course 
in  various  degrees,  exhibit  the  manifold  accomplishments 
with  which  he  was  endowed.  He  was  never  merely  eloquent. 
He  was  never  merely  logical.  He  always  aimed  at  pleasing 
while  he  convinced,  and  at  convincing  while  he  pleased. 
He  succeeded  partly  by  virtue  of  his  natural  gifts,  such 
as  his  musical  voice,  his  command  of  language,  and  his 
classical  style.  But  he  also  bestowed  immense  labour  upon 
the  task  of  arranging  his  material,  and  so  distributing  it 
as  to  make  it  most  effective.  He  never  left  anything  to 
the  chance  of  a  happy  inspiration.  His  mind  was  instinct 
with  the  spirit  of  order,  so  that  every  fact  was  in  its  proper 
place,  ready  to  be  brought  out  when  it  was  wanted,  and  not 
before.  No  Parliamentary  statesman  ever  took  more  pains 
to  provide  for  the  arrangement  of  topics  in  their  due  suc- 
cession, so  that  there  should  be  no  overlapping,  no  repetition, 
no  belated  return  to  a  subject  already  dismissed. 

Gladstone  was  a  master  of  lucid  statement,  of  perspicuous 
narrative,  of  cogent  and  conclusive  reasoning.  His  eloquence 
was  reserved  for  great  occasions.  The  most  prominent  feature 
of  his  ordinary  speeches  is  the  entire  command  of  the  situation 
which  they  display  in  all  its  qualities  and  aspects.  Though 
seldom,  if  ever,  overloaded  with  detail,  they  contain  all  the 
relevant   facts,   and  their  power  largely  depends   upon   the 


GLADSTONE  421 

solidity  of  their  foundation.  This  it  is  which  gave  Gladstone 
such  strength  in  debate,  such  ease  and  force  in  controversial 
encounters.  He  was  so  thoroughly  imbued  with  the  whole 
atmosphere  of  the  case  that  he  had  only  to  wield  his  natural 
resources  in  directing  his  knowledge  towards  the  end  at  which 
he  aimed.  His  apparent  ease  was  really  the  result  of  labour 
so  skilfully  employed  that  he  could,  without  fresh  effort,  make 
use  of  his  acquisitions  as  if  they  had  been  part  of  his  personal 
experience.  He  was  not  content  when  in  office,  to  avail  him- 
self of  the  trained  capacity  which  a  Minister  always  has  at  his 
disposal.  He  mastered  himself  the  minutest  points  of  a  case 
which  he  took  up,  and  then  delivered  an  argument  as  free 
and  unembarrassed  as  if  he  were  merely  deahng  with  obvious 
generalities. 

The  Eastern  Question 

House  of  Commons,  May  1th,  \%11 

I  MUCH  regret  that  I  should  introduce  a  subject  of  the  greatest 
importance  after  discussions  which  must  necessarily  have  had, 
I  do  not  say  an  irritating,  but  a  dissipating  effect  upon  the 
mind  and  attention  of  the  House.  Before  approaching  it, 
I  must  deal  with  one  or  two  preliminary  matters. 

My  hon.  friend  the  member  for  Stafford  (Mr.  Macdonald) 
has  spoken  of  the  character  of  the  manifestations  which  have 
recently  proceeded  from  the  country.  I  have  watched  the 
proceedings  and  read  the  declarations  and  conclusions  arrived 
at  steadily  and  regularly  ;  until  to-day,  when  the  number  of 
meetings  has  entirely  overpowered  me,  for  irrespective  of  other 
correspondence  the  reports  of  nearly  100  meetings  have  reached 
me  since  this  morning.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  having  read  all 
the  resolutions  passed  at  the  previous  meetings,  and  having 
even  observed  that  from  day  to  day  their  tone  became  warmer 
and  warmer,  I  am  bound  to  corroborate  the  statement  of  my 
hon.  friend  the  member  for  Stafford.  ^  In  a  very  small  number 
of  these  popular  declarations,  neutrality  was  either  expressed  or 
implied.  But  I  must  add,  again  speaking  simply  to  a  matter  of 
fact,  though  I  put  no  particular  construction  on  it,  the  reception 
of  the  Resolutions  now  before  the  House  has  been  singularly 


422  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

different  among  the  authorities  that  guide  pubHc  opinion  in 
the  Metropohs,  and  those  who  address  it  in  the  country.  Some 
of  the  greatest  pundits  of  the  Metropohs  have  been  puzzled 
as  to  what  my  Resolutions  mean  ;  and  I  am  not  sure  that 
there  is  not  a  similar  doubt  and  obscurity  in  the  minds  of  Her 
Majesty's  Government.  The  people  in  the  country,  however, 
do  not  appear  to  have  experienced  any  portion  of  this  difficulty. 
I  am  able  to  say,  of  all  the  resolutions  at  meetings  held  through- 
out the  country,  that  in  more  than  nineteen  cases  out  of  twenty 
their  general  scope  has  been  in  correspondence  not  merely 
with  the  first  two  of  my  five  Resolutions,  but  with  the  whole. 
It  is  only  fair  to  admit  that  I  received  an  account  of  an  adverse 
meeting  held  in  the  great  town  of  Bradford  ;  but  it  was  the 
adverse  meeting,  not  of  the  town  of  Bradford,  but  of  the 
Executive  Committee  of  the  Conservative  Association.  I 
wish  to  give  it  its  due  publicity  in  order  that  such  weight  as 
it  can  fairly  claim  may  be  given  to  it.  Now,  though  many  of 
the  declarations  of  opinion  have  come  from  Liberal  Associa- 
tions, yet  also  a  large  number  have  come  from  towns'  meetings 
regularly  summoned,  and  from  other  public  meetings  openly 
convened,  largely  attended  at  the  very  shortest  notice,  and 
pervaded  by  a  spirit  of  enthusiasm  equal  to  that  which  marked 
the  expression  of  opinion  in  September.  At  one  of  these 
towns'  meetings — that  which  was  held  in  Northampton,  under 
the  presidency  of  the  Mayor — a  gentleman  moved  a  declaration 
to  the  effect  that  it  would  not  be  well  to  interfere  with  the 
action  of  Her  Majesty's  Government,  and  not  a  single  person 
was  found  to  second  that  motion.  There  is  another  town,  and 
that  is  the  town  of  Christchurch,  represented  by  the  hon. 
gentleman  who  is  not  now  in  his  place  (Sir  H.  Drummond 
Wolff)  ;  he  has  wisely  retired  for  the  refreshment  so  necessary 
to  us  all  for  renewing  the  zeal  and  vigour  of  the  inner  man. 
Well,  I  am  glad  to  think  that  the  hon.  gentleman  who  is  about 
to  move  the  Previous  Question  if  the  Notice  holds  good,  is 
or  was  entirely  one  with  me  on  the  substance  of  this  matter. 
I  hold  in  my  hand  the  report  in  a  Conservative  journal  of  the 
speech  made  by  him  at  Christchurch  in  September,  in  which  he 
declares  positively  that  the  Provinces  of  Turkey  must  be 
liberated  ;  and,  as  the  promises  of  its  Government  are  worth- 
less, there  must  be  other  guarantees.  I  am  glad  to  see  that  in 
the  town  he  represents  a  public  meeting  has  been  recently 


GLADSTONE  423 

convened  by  the  Mayor,  and  a  requisition  has  been  made  to  the 
hon.  gentleman  requesting  him  to  support  the  Resolutions, 
the  discussion  of  which  he  is  about  to  stifle.  The  hon.  member 
will  tell  me  if  I  misrepresent  the  case. 

Sir  H.  Drummond  Wolff  :  The  right  hon.  gentleman  is 
misrepresenting  the  case.  The  persons  who  requested  me  to 
support  the  Resolutions  were  chiefly  persons  outside  the 
borough,  imported  in  wagons. 

Mr.  Gladstcnie :  The  authentic  organ  of  opinion  in  a 
borough  is  a  public  meeting  convened  by  the  Mayor,  and  my 
statement  is  not  weakened  by  the  census  the  hon.  gentleman 
has  somewhat  rapidly  taken  of  the  persons  attending  it,  in  a 
manner  not,  I  think,  the  most  complimentary  to  his  constituents. 

I  now  come.  Sir,  to  the  main  question.  These  Resolutions 
would  include,  undoubtedly,  a  vital  or  material  alteration 
of  the  declared  policy  of  Her  Majesty's  Government.  But 
my  first  object,  and  one  of  my  main  objects,  is  to  clear  that 
position  of  the  Government  in  a  most  important  respect. 
One  of  the  points  which  I  must  endeavour,  therefore,  to  estab- 
lish is,  that  that  position  is  at  present  ambiguous.  Am  I 
right  in  saying  that,  if  this  is  so,  it  is  desirable  that  their  posi- 
tion should  be  cleared  ?  I  think  I  can  show  that  I  do  not 
overstate  the  case.  I  do  not  propose  to  move  a  Vote  of  Censure 
on  the  Government,  simply  for  this  reason,  that  I  do  not  see 
what  public  interest  would  be  promoted  by  my  doing  it ;  but 
I  wish  to  say  in  the  calmest  words — yet  they  cannot  be  weak 
words — that  I  know  no  chapter  in  the  history  of  our  foreign 
politics  since  the  peace  of  Vienna  so  deplorable  as  that  of  the 
last  eighteen  months.  I  speak  of  that  policy  generally.  Some 
steps  have  been  taken,  especially  the  mission  of  Lord  Salisbury 
to  Constantinople,  which  deserved  the  approval  of  this  House. 
But  that  step  was  immediately  met  on  the  part  of  the  pro- 
moters of  the  Autumn  movement  by  their  reposing  at  least 
provisionally,  their  confidence  in  the  Ambassador,  and  by  their 
abstaining  from  every  step  that  could  weaken  his  hands. 
They  had  to  consider  this  mission  in  the  light  of  the  Guildhall 
speech.  It  was  difficult  to  say  how  far  it  was  modified  by  that 
extraordinary  speech ;  but,  notwithstanding,  confidence  in 
Lord  Salisbury's  purpose  and  views  was  the  principle  generally 
adopted,  and  upon  that  mission  I  have  not  now  one  word  to 
say  of  censure,  but  only  of  commendation.     But  while  he  was 


424  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

at  Constantinople  there  was  also  another  Representative  of 
England  there,  whose  views  upon  the  most  vital  questions 
were  in  direct  opposition  to  those  of  Lord  Salisbury.  This 
utter  difference  of  opinion,  as  we  now  know,  was  known  to  the 
Turkish  Government,  and  it  counteracted  all  along  Lord 
Salisbury's  efforts.  This,  then,  is  one  of  the  points  upon  which 
the  position  of  the  Government  is  ambiguous  and  requires  to 
be  cleared. 

Then,  again,  with  regard  to  the  withdrawal  of  Sir  Henry 
Elliot  from  Constantinople  at  the  close  of  the  Conference. 
The  conduct  of  the  Porte  had  at  that  time  deserved  some 
manifestation  of  that  feeling  which  it  was  reasonable  for  Her 
Majesty's  Government  to  entertain  ;  and  all  the  other  powers 
had  intelligibly  shown  their  displeasure.  But  so  far  from 
displaying  such  a  sentiment,  Her  Majesty's  Government 
carefully  made  it  known  that  the  departure  of  Sir  Henry 
Elliot  was  no  sign  of  displeasure.  Why  was  that  done  ?  It 
brings  into  question,  if  not  the  sincerity  of  the  Government, 
yet  at  the  very  least  their  firmness  and  clearness  of  purpose. 

Then,  again,  why  was  it  that  Her  Majesty's  Government, 
at  the  time  of  the  Conference,  made  a  communication  to  the 
Porte  that  the  views  of  the  Conference  would  be  words,  and 
words  alone,  and  were  not  to  be  enforced  either  by  Her  Majesty's 
Government  or  with  its  approval  ?  It  is  a  mild  description 
of  that  proceeding  to  say  that  that  rendered  the  policy  and  the 
position  of  Her  Majesty's  Government  an  ambiguous  policy 
and  position.  You  might  as  well  have  dismissed  the  Confer- 
ence altogether.  You  might  as  well  have  done  that  which  you 
seem  given  to  do,  and,  at  the  outset  of  the  proceedings  of  that 
European  Parliament,  have  moved  the  **  Previous  Question." 
The  Conference  was  idle  ;  the  Conference  became  a  farce  from 
the  moment  when  Turkey  had  been  informed  by  England  that 
in  no  circumstances  would  she  either  herself  enforce,  or  recog- 
nize the  enforcement  by  others  of  the  decisions  at  which  the 
Conference  might  arrive.  Why,  Sir,  what  was  the  position 
of  the  case  ?  England  was  then  the  sole  obstacle  to  a  policy 
that  would  have  given  reality  to  the  decisions  that  Lord 
Salisbury  had  laboured  so  gallantly  to  promote.  But,  like 
the  power  behind  the  Throne  in  other  days,  there  was  some- 
where or  other  a  power  behind  Lord  Salisbury  which  determined 
that  he  should  not  succeed.     And  consequently,  at  a  very  early 


GLADSTONE  425 

date  in  the  proceedings  the  Porte  was  informed  on  this  vital 
matter.  Why  was  the  Porte  informed  of  it  ?  Why  was  the 
Porte  informed  of  it  then  ?  When  was  Lord  Sahsbury  made 
aware  of  it  ?  Did  he  know  it  before  he  left  England  ?  [The 
Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer :  "  Yes."]  Ah !  he  did  ? 
He  knew  that  he  was  to  be  allowed  to  use,  words,  and  words 
alone  ?  Did  he  know  it  before  he  accepted  the  mission  ?  My 
question  now  is  whether,  when  Lord  Salisbury  left  England, 
and  not  only  when  he  left  England,  but  when  he  accepted  the 
mission,  and  allowed  himself  to  be  proclaimed  Ambassador, 
he  had  been  made  aware  by  his  colleagues  that  the  words  which 
he  might  use,  and  the  decisions  at  which  the  Conference  might 
arrive  were  to  be  recommendations  simply,  and  were  in  no 
circumstances  to  be  imposed  upon  the  Porte  ?  To  that  I 
have  no  answer.  I  must  answer  it  for  myself.  But,  whether 
Lord  Salisbury  was  aware  of  the  intention  or  not,  why  was  that 
communication  made  to  the  Porte  before  the  proceedings  of 
the  Conference  ?  Why  was  that  communication  made,  which 
drew  forth  a  lively  expression  of  the  gratitude  of  the  Grand 
Vizier  and  of  the  Turkish  Government,  not  to  the  British 
Government  at  large,  but  to  Lord  Beaconsfield  and  Lord 
Derby  ?  Was  the  same  thing  done  by  other  Governments  ? 
The  Austrian  Government,  on  the  contrary,  knowing 
perfectly  weU  with  whom  they  had  to  deal,  had  declared 
that  when  the  decisions  of  the  Conference  were  arrived 
at  they  ought  to  be  imposed  upon  the  Porte  by  a  naval 
demonstration  ;  and,  unless  I  am  much  mistaken,  it  was  well 
knowTi  to  the  Government  of  Her  Majesty  that  in  the  opinion 
of  the  Government  of  France  the  conference  was  an  idle  form 
if  the  Porte  was  to  be  apprised  that  force  was  not  to  be  used 
with  respect  to  the  recommendations  of  Europe.  Therefore, 
we  find  Her  Majesty's  Government,  by  their  unhappy  act, 
playing  the  evil  genius  of  Europe,  and  at  the  most  critical 
moment  taking  the  very  step  that  was  certain,  in  the  opinion  of 
the  best  and  most  experienced  judges,  to  nullify  and  frustrate 
utterly  the  labours  they  were  ostensibly  undertaking.  It 
is  a  mild  description  to  say  that  this  rendered  the  position  of 
the  Government  an  ambiguous  position. 

I  am  bound  to  say  I  think  the  mission  of  Mr.  Layard  has, 
in  its  outward  aspect,  the  same  effect.  I  carefully  abstain 
from  pronouncing  a  final  judgment  upon  it.     I  do  not  desire 


426  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

to  make  it  a  subject  of  censure.  I  have  known  Mr.  Layard 
in  two  capacities.  I  have  known  Mr.  Layard  when  I  last  held 
office  under  the  Crown.  I  then  knew  him  as  the  able  Repre- 
sentative of  this  country  at  Madrid — discharging  his  duties 
in  a  manner  that  gave  to  the  late  ministry  the  most  perfect 
satisfaction.  But  I  cannot  altogether  set  aside  my  recollec- 
tion of  Mr.  Layard  in  this  House,  when  he  was  by  far  the  most 
effective,  and  by  far  the  furthest-going  advocate  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  Turkey  whom  I  have  ever  known  to  sit  on  these  benches. 
Consequently,  as  we  find  in  the  Blue  Book  which  was  presented 
to  us  on  Saturday,  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Layard  was  again 
selected  as  a  special  subject  of  thanks  by  the  Turkish  Govern- 
ment, and  it  was  acknowledged  in  a  peculiar  and  very  appro- 
priate phrase  to  be  on  the  part  of  the  Government  of  Her 
Majesty,  inasmuch  as  they  knew  his  friendly  sentiments 
towards  Turkey,  a  "  delicate  attention."  A  **  dehcate  atten- 
tion "  to  that  Government  which  has  made  itself  responsible 
in  full  from  first  to  last  for  the  massacres  of  Bulgaria,  and  whose 
fixed  attention  it  is  that  on  the  first  similar  occasion  similar 
massacres  should  be  again  perpetrated.  "  Delicate  atten- 
tions "  to  that  Government  from  the  Government  of  Her 
Majesty  are  matters  which,  if  not  wrong  in  themselves,  at  least 
require  some  elucidation  to  show  that  their  position  with  regard 
to  the  crimes  of  that  Government  is  not  an  ambiguous  position. 
Again,  Sir,  it  will  be  remembered  that  a  despatch  was  pro- 
duced to  us  in  the  month  of  May  last  year  in  which  it  was 
stated  that  Her  Majesty's  Government  felt  that  Turkey  was 
only  to  depend  upon  their  moral  support.  Now  my  second 
Resolution,  which  is  regarded  by  the  Secretary  for  War  as  of 
so  neutral  and  inoperative  a  character,  carefully  states  that 
Turkey  has  lost  all  claim  to  either  the  material  or  the  moral 
support  of  Great  Britain.  The  lines  between  material  and 
moral  support  are  not  always  easily  drawn.  What  kind  of 
support  did  Her  Majesty's  Government  give  to  Turkey  last 
year  when,  having  sent  a  squadron  to  Besika  Bay  to  protect 
Christian  hfe,  they  afterwards  converted  that  squadron  into  a 
powerful  fleet  for  some  other  unacknowledged  purpose  ? 
What  kind  of  support,  I  say,  was  the  support  then  given  to 
Turkey  ?  Her  Majesty's  Government,  as  far  as  my  knowledge 
goes,  have  never  disclaimed  this  ill-omend  phrase  "  moral 
support."  I  do  not  want  to  pin  them  to  it — God  forbid  !     I 


GLADSTONE  427 

wish  with  all  my  soul  that  they  may  disclaim  it ;  but  I  wish 
also  to  point  out  that,  as  far  as  I  know,  it  has  not  yet  been 
disclaimed 

What  may  not  be  done  under  the  name  of  "  moral  support "  ? 
Why,  almost  as  much  as  may  be  done  under  the  name  of 
"  British  interests."  We  sent  that  fleet  to  Besika  Bay,  or, 
at  least,  we  made  that  squadron  into  a  fleet  when  it  was  in 
Besika  Bay  ;  and  what  was  the  effect  of  the  presence  of  that 
fleet  ?  I  say,  without  the  least  hesitation,  it  was  to  overawe 
the  Provinces  bordering  on  the  Archipelago  and  the  Kingdom 
of  free  Greece,  and  to  prevent  any  movement  which  might 
have  been  made  in  sympathy  with  the  Slav  Provinces.  And 
therefore,  although  without  lifting  up  a  hand,  it  was  material 
as  well  as  moral  support  that  was  supphed  to  Turkey  under 
the  name  of  moral  support,  for  it  prevented  from  pouring  into 
the  field  those  who  would  have  added  to  the  force  of  Turkey's 
rebellious  subjects. 

I  venture  to  say  there  is  a  greater  ambiguity  still,  and  a 
more  prolific  source  of  it,  than  those  to  which  I  have  already 
referred  ;  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  conflicting  declarations  of  the 
members  of  Her  Majesty's  Government.  Having  recognized 
the  mission  of  Lord  Salisbury  as  a  kind  of  point  of  junction 
at  which  we  who  had  taken  part  in  the  popular  movement, 
were  able  to  bring  ourselves  into  a  sort  of  union  with  Her 
Majesty's  Government,  I  will  go  back  to  nothing  in  the  con- 
duct of  the  Government  which  preceded  that  mission,  and 
thereby  I  shall  get  rid  of  a  good  deal  of  awkward  matter 
spoken  at  Aylesbury  and  elsewhere.  I  will  not  draw  a  com- 
parison between  those  speeches,  and  other  speeches  which 
gave  some  pubUc  satisfaction,  and  tended  greatly  to  arrest 
the  movement  which  was  in  progress  in  the  country.  I  take 
only  what  has  happened  in  England  since  the  dispatch  of 
September  21  to  the  Conference  at  Constantinople.  I  am 
bound  to  say  I  cannot  do  otherwise  than  recognize  the  most 
distinct  retrogression  in  the  poUcy  of  Her  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment since  the  closing  of  the  Conference.  I  also  find  contra- 
dictions which  I  at  least  am  wholly  unable  to  reconcile  in  the 
declarations  of  the  Government.  I  take  first  one  declaration 
which  I  think  ought  to  be  borne  in  mind,  though  I  do  not  dwell 
upon  it,  because  I  do  not  wish  to  make  it  a  matter  of  contro- 
versy.    There  was  a  declaration  by  Sir  Henry  EUiot,  that  it 


428  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

did  not  signify,  so  far  as  the  main  question  was  concerned, 
what  number  of  Bulgarians  were  massacred,  because  the  thing 
essential  for  us  to  do  was  to  maintain  our  vital  interests  in  the 
Ottoman  Empire.  Lord  Derby  very  properly  rebuked  and 
repudiated  that  declaration  in  his  despatch  of  the  21st  of 
September  ;  where,  after  describing  the  outrages  which  had 
occurred,  and  the  countenance  given  to  them,  he  said  that  no 
interests  whatever  could  possibly  justify  acquiescence  in  the 
continuance  of  such  a  system.  That  was  a  sharp  antagonism 
between  Minister  and  Ambassador.  But  I  want  to  know 
which  of  these  two  conflicting  authorities  is  to  come  uppermost 
in  the  long  run.  No  doubt  the  authority  of  Lord  Derby  is  the 
greater.  I  am  certain  that  what  he  wrote,  he  wrote  with  sin- 
cerity. But  if  I  am  to  look  at  the  tone  and  tenor  of  the  declar- 
ations of  the  Government  for  the  last  two  or  three  months, 
I  am  sorry  to  say  that  they  seem  to  me  to  be  relapsing  into  a 
position  in  which  the  outrages  inflicted  by  the  Government 
of  Turkey  are  to  be  contemplated  as  matters  of  sentimental 
regret,  and  for  idle  and  verbal  expostulations  ;  but  in  which 
action  is  to  be  determined  by  whatever  we  may  choose  to  think 
to  be  British  interests.  That  is  to  say,  that  our  opinion  of 
what  we  think  best  for  ourselves  is,  after  all,  to  be,  in  substance, 
our  measure  of  right  and  wrong  all  over  the  world.  I  want 
to  know  whether  that  contradiction  subsists,  or  whether  we 
still  have  to  learn  that  there  is  to  be  no  toleration  for  iniquity, 
and  that  no  continuance  of  material  or  of  moral  support  is  to 
be  given  to  a  Government  which  is  so  deeply  dyed  with  the 
guilt  of  these  outrages. 

Next  I  come  to  a  declaration  of  Lord  Carnarvon.  There  is 
not  a  single  utterance  which  has  proceeded  from  the  mouth  of 
any  member  of  Her  Majesty's  Government  that  served  the 
purposes  of  the  Government  better  at  the  time  than  this  manly 
speech  of  Lord  Carnarvon.  What  did  he  say  ?  I  will  not 
quote  him  at  length,  but  he  said  : 

"  He  did  not  disagree,  if  he  rightly  understood  it,  with  the  pubhc 
feeling  and  opinion,  because  it  had  been  somewhat  loudly  expressed, 
and  because  here  and  there  might  have  been  some  exaggerations.  He 
thought,  on  the  contrary,  it  was  a  credit  to  the  country.  He  rejoiced 
that  there  was  neither  delay  nor  hesitation  in  the  expression  of  that 
feeling,  and,  so  far  from  weakening  the  hands  of  the  Government,  he 
believed  that,  if  rightly  understood  at  home  and  abroad,  nothing  could 
more  strengthen  the  hands  of  his   noble  friend  the  Foreign  Secretary 


GLADSTONE  429 

than  the  burst  of  indignation  which  had  just  gone  through  the  length 
and  breadth  of  the  land." 

That  was  the  declaration  of  Lord  Carnarvon.  No  contra- 
diction to  it  was  given  by  any  member  of  the  Government  at 
the  time.  But  what  has  been  done  lately  ?  The  noble  Lord, 
the  Secretary  for  Foreign  Affairs,  in  a  place  which  I  need  not 
name — his  words,  wherever  they  may  be  spoken,  are  too 
important  not  to  excite  attention — described  the  sentiment 
of  the  British  people,  manifested  last  Autumn,  as  a  "  got  up  " 
sentiment — we  know  what  is  contained  in  these  words — and 
expressed  it  to  be  his  opinion  that  the  effect  of  it  had  been 
mischievous.  He  thus  spoke  in  direct  contradiction  of  that 
declaration  of  Lord  Carnarvon  ;  for  which,  when  I  just  now 
read  it,  I  was  sorry  to  observe  there  was  not,  from  the  other 
side  of  the  House,  a  sohtary  cheer.  On  the  first  night  of  the 
Session,  when  this  retrogression  of  which  I  complain  had  hardly 
begun  to  develop  itself,  my  right  hon.  friend  the  Chancellor 
of  the  Exchequer  made  a  declaration  on  the  subject  of  the 
Turkish  Constitution,  which  I  heard  with  the  greatest  pleasure, 
but  for  which  he  was,  I  think,  severely  rebuked  by  some  of  the 
organs  of  the  Turkish  Government  in  the  London  Press.  He 
earned  the  rebuke  by  speaking,  as  he  did  speak,  the  language 
of  good  sense  about  the  Turkish  Constitution,  which  he 
described  as  a  thing  in  which  no  sensible  man  could  place  the 
sHghtest  reliance.  In  doing  that  he  did  not  go  beyond,  but 
remained  completely  within,  the  shadow  of  that  most  masterly 
Paper  in  which  Lord  SaUsbury — as  may  be  seen  from  the 
Blue  Book — had  torn  the  Turkish  Constitution  into  rags,  and 
held  it  up  to  the  contempt  and  derision  of  mankind.  It  is, 
indeed,  a  device — first  and  foremost,  to  delude  Western 
Europe  by  a  show  of  freedom,  and,  secondly,  to  organize,  and 
thereby  strengthen  the  oppressive  force  which  bears  down 
the  subject-races.  But  is  that  the  tone  now  ?  Read  the 
Despatch  of  Lord  Derby  to  Prince  Gortchakoff,  which  we  have 
received  to-day.  All  is  changed.  You  wiU  find  that  there 
Her  Majesty's  Government  says  plainly  that  Turkey  should  be 
allowed  time  to  reform  herself,  and  that  it  is  not  reasonable 
to  abandon  the  hope  of  complete  and  satisfactory  rehef  to 
the  subjects  of  the  Porte,  inasmuch  as  Turkey  has  promised 
that  reform.  But  I  will  quote  one  more,  as  it  appears  to  me, 
a   clear  and  distinct  contradiction.      My  right  hon.    friend 


430  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  told  us  on  a  former  and  not 
very  late  occasion  that  it  was  a  very  great  hardship  to  Turkey 
that  she  should  be  complained  of  for  not  reforming  herself 
when  a  war  cloud  was  hanging  over  her.  He  said  it  was  a  time 
when  it  was  almost  impossible  to  apply  moral  pressure  to 
her ;  and  he  went  on  to  explain  that,  in  his  view,  the  presence 
of  a  Russian  Army  on  her  frontier  made  her  position  one  of 
great  difficulty  by  appealing  to  those  principles  of  honour 
which  are  supposed  to  be  so  highly  refined  and  polished  in 
the  Turkish  mind.  My  right  hon.  friend  distinctly  pointed 
to  the  Russian  armaments  as  having  been  an  obstacle  in  the 
way  of  the  Conference  at  Constantinople,  and  as  having  cut 
off  the  hopes  of  its  success  ;  but  in  saying  that  he  is  in  direct 
and  diametrical  contradiction  to  Lord  Salisbury.  Lord 
Salisbury  had  publicly  declared,  and  his  words  cannot  be 
subjected  to  question,  that  the  Russian  armament  on  the 
contrary  constituted  the  hope  of  the  Conference.  I  will  not 
trouble  the  House  with  lengthened  quotations  ;  but  Lord 
Salisbury  in  substance  said  that  he  knew  very  well  that  mere 
words  were  useless  ;  nay,  worse  than  useless,  because  delusive, 
and  that  it  was  to  the  Russian  armaments,  and  the  consequent 
danger  to  Turkey,  and  the  power  of  pointing  out  that  danger 
before  her  eyes,  that  the  Representatives  of  the  other  Powers 
at  the  Conference  attached  their  whole  hope  of  inducing  Turkey 
to  acquiesce  in  their  conclusions.  Even  with  that  advantage, 
acquiesce  she  would  not.  Thus,  again,  we  have  important 
members  of  the  Government  making  statements  which  entirely 
contradict  one  another  on  vital  points  of  the  case.  And  now, 
this  very  day,  we  have  the  despatch  to  Prince  Gortchakoff,  justly 
hailed  with  delight  by  the  so-called  friends  of  Turkey.  I  am 
not  surprised  at  it,  for  there  is  no  mistaking  the  tone  of  that 
despatch.  In  its  tone  and  its  tendency  it  is  redolent  all 
through  of  moral  support,  it  is  charged  with  moral  support, 
and,  unless  the  Government  thinks  fit  to  give  us  some  explana- 
tion of  it  which  will  relieve  our  minds,  we  challenge  them  in 
this  House  to-night  to  have  it  declared  authoritatively  whether 
Turkey  has,  or  has  not,  lost  all  claim  to  our  moral  as  well  as 
our  material  support. 

The  House  will  well  recollect  the  whole  line  of  argument 
which  was  pursued  by  the  Government  both  for  some  time 
before  and  during  the  sittings  of  the  Conference.     It  had 


GLADSTONE  431 

become  as  clear  as  possible  that  Turkey  had  at  all  times  been 
a  country  fertile  beyond  any  other  in  promises.  No  man 
knew  that  better  than  the  right  hon.  gentleman,  the  Secretary 
for  the  Home  Department,  when  he  aptly  compared  her 
promises  to  inconvertible  paper,  and  said  we  must  have 
sterhng  metal.  Necessary  guarantees,  something  beyond 
mere  promises,  adequate  securities,  consisting  in  something 
beyond  and  above  the  engagements  or  ostensible  proceedings 
of  the  Turkish  Government  constituted  indeed  the  pith  of  the 
extracts  which  were  read  by  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer 
on  the  first  night  of  the  Session  from  the  Instructions  to  Lord 
SaUsbury.  Well,  what  has  now  become  of  those  necessary 
guarantees  ?  They  are  all  gone  to  the  winds.  We  are  told  in 
the  despatch  published  this  morning  that  we  are  to  found  our 
hopes  on  the  fact  that  the  Porte  has  promised  certain  things, 
and  that  as  it  has  promised  we  cannot  be  sure  that  it  will  not 
perform.  This  is  the  vital  point ;  it  lies  at  the  root  of  the  whole 
matter.  We  are  now  told  to  rely  on  those  promises.  But, 
for  my  own  part,  I  would  repeat  what  I  said  on  a  former  occa- 
sion, when  we  were  trying  remonstrance  after  remonstrance, 
and  protestation  after  protestation.  Those  protestations,  and 
those  remonstrances,  and  those  representations  which  have 
been  lavished  in  such  redundance  on  the  Porte  by  Her  Majesty's 
Government,  are  all  very  well  up  to  a  certain  point ;  up  to 
the  point  at  which  there  remains  some  semblance  of  a  reason- 
able hope  that  they  may  possibly  attain  their  end.  But,  it  is 
not  so,  when  we  have  found  by  long  and  wide  experience  that 
they  produce  no  substantial  result  whatever.  It  was  not  thus 
always  ;  for  in  the  time  of  Lord  Stratford  de  Redcliffe,  a  man 
of  masterly  ability,  of  iron  will  and  of  a  character  which  did 
not  admit  of  his  being  trifled  with,  something  was  done  in 
a  few  points  by  the  Porte,  and  some  improvements,  on  certain 
points,  were  effected  in  the  condition  of  its  people.  But 
during  all  these  later  years,  the  case  has  not  stood  so  well. 
With  regard  to  remonstrances  made  in  the  time  of  the  late 
Government,  they  were  not  very  numerous,  for  no  great  crisis 
occurred  in  Turkey,  and  the  matters  reported  were,  I  believe, 
comparatively  rare.  Recently  the  case  has  been  different. 
With  regard  to  those  remonstrances,  which,  since  the  rebeUion 
in  her  Provinces  have  become  much  more  numerous,  our 
experience  has  been  so  unbroken  and  unvarying  that  the  man 


432  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

who  persists  in  a  system  of  mere  remonstrances  and  mere 
expostulations,  really  seems  to  convict  himself,  either  of 
insincerity,  which  is  not  for  a  moment  to  be  imputed  here, 
or  of  a  total  incapacity  to  understand  the  affairs  with  which 
he  has  had  to  deal. 

I  have  spoken,  then,  of  contrariety  in  the  declarations  of 
members  of  the  Government,  and  of  the  extremely  ambiguous 
position  in  which  it  stands  with  respect  to  this  question.  I 
think  we  are  entitled  to  ask  that  all  this  ambiguity  may  be 
cleared  away,  and  that  we  may  be  permitted  to  know  whether 
after  all  that  has  happened  we  are  still  to  rely  on  Turkish 
propositions,  and  still  to  afford  to  the  Sultan  a  moral  support. 
Going  outside  the  Government,  I  now  come  to  the  language  of 
its  adherents  in  the  Press  and  in  the  country.  There  never 
has  been  a  time  when  I  have  heard  so  much  of  direct  com- 
munication between  the  Government  and  the  Metropolitan 
Press,  as  within  the  last  eighteen  months  ;  and  my  belief  is 
that  at  no  time  has  it  been  so  constant  and  unfailing.  What 
the  tone  of  the  prints  is  which  are  supposed  to  enjoy  the 
privilege  of  these  communications  everyone  who  hears  me  is 
aware.  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  the  language  which  is 
held  among  the  supporters  of  the  Government  in  the  society 
of  London,  and  by  that  portion  of  the  Press  which  has  taken 
what  I  may  call  the  Turkish  side  of  this  matter — I  say  which 
is  called  the  Turkish  side,  because  I  believe  those  of  whom  I 
am  speaking  and  who  suppose  that  they  are  acting  a  friendly 
part  towards  Turkey,  are  all  the  time  driving  her  on  to  utter 
ruin — is  language,  the  purpose  of  which,  distinct  and  uncon- 
cealed, is  to  prepare  the  public  mind  for  war.  And  for  what 
war  ?  Not  for  war  under  the  name  of  war  on  the  side  of 
Turkey,  but  for  a  war  to  be  undertaken  under  some  shadowy 
pretext  of  a  British  interest.  Now,  what  are  British  interests  ? 
and  for  what  purpose  is  that  phrase  brought  into  incessant 
use  ?  The  phrase  itself  is  the  most  elastic  in  the  world.  Con- 
sider the  position  of  this  Empire.  Consider  how  from  this 
little  island  we  have  stretched  out  our  arms  into  every  portion 
of  the  world.  (  Consider  how  we  have  conquered,  planted, 
annexed,  and  appropriated  at  all  the  points  of  the  compass, 
so  that  at  few  points  on  the  surface  of  the  earth  is  there  not 
some  region  or  spot  of  British  dominion  near  at  hand.  Nor 
even  from  these  few  points  are  we  absent.     Consider  how  our 


GLADSTONE  433 

commerce  finds  its  way  into  every  port  which  a  ship  can  enter. 
And  then  I  ask  you  what  quarrel  can  ever  arise  between  any 
two  countries,  or  what  war,  in  which  you  may  not,  if  you  be 
so  minded,  set  up  British  interests  as  a  ground  of  interference. 
That  is  the  case  of  India  in  particular.  We  go  to  the  other  end 
of  the  world  as  a  company  of  merchants  ;  we  develop  the  arts 
and  arms  of  conquerors  ;  we  rule  over  a  vast  space  of  territory 
containing  200,000,000  people,  and  what  do  we  say  next  ?  We 
lay  a  virtual  claim  to  a  veto  upon  all  the  political  arrangements 
of  all  the  countries  and  seas  which  can  possibly  constitute 
any  one  of  the  routes  between  England  and  the  East,  between 
two  extremities,  or  nearly  such,  of  the  World.  We  say  to  one 
State,  You  must  do  nothing  in  the  Black  Sea  at  Batoum,  because 
Batoum  and  Erzeroum  may  one  day  become  a  route  to  the 
East.  We  say,  You  must  do  nothing  in  Syria  or  Bagdad, 
because  we  may  finally  discover  the  valley  of  the  Euphrates 
to  be  the  best  route  to  the  East.  The  Suez  Canal  was  made 
for  the  benefit  of  the  world  ;  but  it  is  thought  by  some  of  these 
pretenders  that  we,  who  almost  furiously  opposed  the  digging 
of  it,  have  rights  there  which  are  quite  distinct  in  kind  from 
those  of  the  rest  of  the  world,  and  that  we  are  entitled  to 
assert  our  mastery  without  regard  to  the  interests  of  other 
portions  of  mankind.  Then  there  is  the  route  by  the  Cape 
of  Good  Hope.  It  happens,  however,  that  at  the  Cape  no  one 
annexes  but  ourselves.  Nay,  it  appears  from  news  no  older 
than  to-day  that  we  are  so  stinted  in  our  possessions  that  it  is 
expedient  to  make  large  additions  to  our  territory  there  ;  and 
to  make  them  exactly  by  those  menaces  of  force  which  ministers 
think  so  intolerable  in  the  case  of  Turkey.  And  then  you  know, 
Mr.  Speaker,  that  any  additions  to  our  territory  are  always 
perfectly  innocent.  Sometimes  they  may  be  made  without 
bloodshed  ;  sometimes  they  are  made  not  without  a  threat  of 
bloodshed.  But  that  is  not  our  fault ;  it  is  only  due  to  the 
stupidity  of  those  people  who  cannot  perceive  the  wisdom 
of  coming  under  our  sceptre.  We  are  endowed  with  a  super- 
iority of  character,  a  noble  unselfishness,  an  inflexible  integrity 
which  the  other  nations  of  the  world  are  too  slow  to  recognize  ;  j 
and  they  are  stupid  enough  to  think  that  we — superior  beings  | 
that  we  are — are  to  be  bound  by  the  same  vulgar  rules  that  \ 
might  be  justly  applicable  to  the  ordinary  sons  of  Adam.  | 
Now  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that,  in  the  particular  case  of  the 
28— (2170) 


434  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

Eastern  Question,  nothing  is  wanted  but  right  conduct  on  the 
part  of  the  Government  to  give  the  greatest  dignity,  as  well  as 
the  greatest  security,  to  the  position  of  this  country.  We  have 
improperly  allowed  the  vindication  of  the  great  cause  in  the 
East  to  pass  into  the  hands  of  a  single  Power.  It  is  true  that, 
by  the  mouth  of  Lord  Derby,  the  nation  has  been  made  to 
speak  that  which  by  its  own  mouth  it  does  not,  and  would  not, 
speak  at  all.  He  has  rebuked  a  single  Powef  for  the  responsibility 
of  consequences,  because  it  has  made  itself  the  organ  of  the 
collective  will,  the  united  judgment,  and  the  solemn  conclusions 
of  Europe.  That  is  the  course  which  we  have  taken,  and  that 
is  a  dangerous  course.  We  ought  to  view  with  regret  and 
misgiving  anything  that  puts  a  single  Power  in  a  position  to 
take  such  a  charge  upon  herself,  and  most  of  all  in  the  case  of 
a  Power  like  Russia,  which,  as  a  neighbouring  Power,  has 
special  temptations  in  matters  of  this  kind.  Such  a  power  as 
Russia,  and,  I  must  add,  such  a  power  as  Austria,  has  of  neces- 
sity special  temptations  in  this  case  ;  and  it  can  never  be 
satisfactory  to  me  to  see  the  subject  settled  either  by  Russia, 
or  by  Austria,  or  by  Russia  with  Austria.  But  the  question 
remains — how  are  these  terrible  evils,  which  afflict  Turkey  and 
disgrace  Europe,  to  be  met  ?  Are  they  to  be  met  by  remon- 
strances and  expostulations  only  ?  The  answer  echoed  back 
from  the  ministerial  benches  is — "By  remonstrances  and 
expostulations  only."  Now  that,  I  believe,  human  nature, 
the  conscience  of  mankind  and  the  civilization  of  the  nineteenth 
century  will  no  longer  bear.  If  you  are  not  prepared  to  carry 
further  that  united  action  of  Europe  in  which  you  seem  to  engage 
but  which  you  defeated  by  your  ill-judged  proceedings,  you 
must  expect  to  see  it  pass  into  the  hands  of  others,  and  your 
remonstrances  and  your  cavils  at  others  will  not  be  appreciated 
by  the  general  sentiment  of  the  world  until  you  are  able  to 
show  that  you  are  yourselves  ready  to  enter  into  some  honour- 
able combination  for  the  purpose  of  applying  an  effectual 
remedy  to  the  evil. 

Now,  Sir,  I  pass  from  this  general  argument  to  the  first 
Resolution,  and  to  Lord  Derby's  despatch.  That  despatch 
involved  one  of  two  things.  It  was  either  a  declaration  that 
ought  to  have  been  followed  up,  or  else  it  was  a  gross  and 
unwarrantable  insult  to  Turkey.  There  is  no  escape  from  the 
dilemma.     You  have  no  right  to  go  about  flinging  those  violent 


GLADSTONE  435 

words  in  the  face  of  any  Power,  unless  that  Power  has  made 
itself  a  criminal  before  Europe  ;  and  if  that  Power  is  to  have 
your  moral  support,  you  have  certainly  no  right  to  use  such 
language.  You  were  bound  either  to  tear  that  despatch  into 
shreds,  or  to  go  further  in  your  own  vindication.  The  language 
of  that  despatch  was  as  strong  as  the  language  used  at  any  of 
the  meetings  held  last  Autumn.  In  substance  it  demanded 
reparation  for  the  'past  and  security  for  the  future.  I  have 
read  carefully  to-day  Mr.  Baring's  Report  on  the  Bulgarian 
massacres.  Remember  it  is  now  twelve  months  since  those 
Bulgarian  massacres  occurred.  What  has  been  the  position 
of  the  Turkish  Government  in  relation  to  this  question  ? 
Those  massacres  occurred  in  May,  but  it  was  three  months 
afterwards  before  the  first  intimation  reached  the  other  Govern- 
ments. What  had  the  Turkish  Government  done  during  those 
three  months  ?  They  had  simply  been  engaged  in  wholesale 
imprisonment  of  Bulgarians  in  foul  and  loathsome  dens,  in 
bringing  them  to  trial,  and  in  directing  scores  of  executions. 
That  was  the  view  of  the  Turkish  Government  with  regard  to 
the  massacres  ;  and  they  have  not,  even  at  this  date,  attained 
to  a  right  conception  of  the  ideas  of  Europe  upon  these  most 
guilty  transactions,  and  upon  their  own  complicity  in  them, 
Lord  Derby  demanded  that  the  authors  of  the  massacres  should 
be  punished  ;  and  this  and  the  demand  for  reparation,  were 
the  main  points  of  the  despatch.  We  are  now  in  the  month  of 
May.  Let  us  see  what  has  been  done.  Mr.  Baring  tells  us 
that  very  great  progress  has  been  made  in  rebuilding  the  vil- 
lages— with  the  forced  labour  of  the  people  themselves — that 
many  of  the  women  and  girls  have  been  returned,  and  that  a 
few  of  the  cattle  have  been  recovered.  These  are  the  sub- 
stantive results  of  the  despatch.  These  things  have,  however, 
nothing  to  do  with  the  policies  of  the  massacres,  nor  do  they 
touch  in  the  slightest  degree  our  principal  demands.  But 
what  has  happened  as  to  the  punishment  of  the  offenders  and 
reward  of  well-doers  ?  I  must  go,  however  briefly,  over  these 
particulars  of  the  conduct  of  the  Turkish  Government,  because 
it  forms  the  ground  for  the  first  two  resolutions  which  I  ask 
the  House  to  adopt.  The  despatch  of  Lord  Derby  has  been, 
in  the  main  points,  treated  with  contempt.  I  do  not  discuss 
the  prudence  of  that  despatch — I  hold  it  to  be,  in  various 
points,  far  from  prudent — but  has  the  conduct  of  the  guilty 


436  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

persons  been  approved  and  rewarded  by  the  Turkish  Govern- 
ment, or  have  they  been  marked  out  for  condign  punishment, 
as  Lord  Derby,  speaking  for  the  Queen  demanded  ?  Shefket 
Pasha,  Toussoon  Pasha,  and  Achmet  Aga  have  not  been 
executed — one  of  them  was  not  tried  ;  one  tried  and  acquitted  ; 
one  tried  and  condemned,  but  his  sentence  was  not  executed. 
It  is  an  absolute  mockery  to  which  we  have  submitted.  I 
beheve  I  may  say  that  not  one  considerable  man  has  had  any 
sentence  whatever  executed  against  him.  One  or  two  nameless 
and  insignificant  individuals  have  been  put  to  death,  whether 
on  account  of  these  massacres  does  not  very  clearly  appear  ; 
but  the  chief  agents  have  escaped  with  perfect  impunity,  and 
decorations  and  rewards  have  been  given  to  many  of  them. 
And,  finally,  of  those  good  Mohammedans,  who  at  the  hazard 
of  their  lives  interfered  in  the  interests  of  humanity  and 
justice,  every  one  has  been  either  punished  by  dismissal,  or 
else  remains  to  this  hour  unrewarded. 

In  the  first  place,  there  is  everything  short  of  absolute  proof 
that  these  massacres  were  originally  designed.  If  they  were 
not,  why  were  the  Bashi-Bazouks  employed  for  their  suppres- 
sion ?  Yet  I  do  not  mean  to  imply  that  the  employment  of  the 
Regulars  would  have  afforded  a  security  against  outrage.  On 
the  contrary,  they  committed  on  many  occasions  gross  cruelty 
and  outrage.  Yet  they  were,  on  the  whole,  far  behind  the 
incredible  fury  and  wickedness  of  the  Bashi-Bazouks.  Again, 
why  were  the  Mussulman  population  armed  ?  There  is  no 
sufficient  answer.  There  was  war.  Yes,  but  the  war  did 
not  occur  for  two  months  after.  There  was  a  rebellion  in  the 
smaU  province  of  Herzegovina.  But  there  were  Turkish 
troops  there  to  deal  with  the  rebellion.  It  was  a  wanton  and 
wilful  act  on  the  part  of  Turkey  to  arm  those  irregular  troops. 
The  extraordinary  excuse  you  find  in  some  passages  of  those 
Blue  Books  is,  that  there  were  Russian  agents  who  suggested 
it  to  the  Turks  in  order  to  cause  the  massacres  that  ensued. 
There  is  no  proof,  I  know,  of  such  a  suggestion,  still  such  is  the 
allegation.  But  even  if  that  were  the  case,  does  that  diminish 
the  guilt  of  the  Turks  ?  Not  by  a  single  hair's  breadth.  I 
admit  that  the  question  is  wrapped  in  mystery,  and  that  we 
can  only  judge  of  facts  ;  but  this  we  know — that  after  the 
massacres,  and  when  the  Turkish  Government  was  well  informed 
of  them,  they  proceeded  not  to  punish  the  perpetrators,  but 


GLADSTONE  437 

to  imprison  and  hang  more  Biilgarians  ;  and  that  when  a 
stir  began  to  be  made  in  Europe,  illusory  inquiries  were  set  on 
foot,  and  that  from  these  inquiries  there  proceeded  reports 
which  it  is  idle  to  describe  except  in  plain  words  as  lying 
reports.  They  are  described  as  lying  reports  by  the  Consul 
of  the  United  States  ;  and  in  language  exactly  equivalent 
though  rather  more  civil,  by  Mr.  Baring  and  Sir  Henry  Elliot, 
as,  I  think  utterly  untrustworthy  reports.  When  the  stir 
was  made  in  this  country  and  elsewhere,  which  Lord  Derby 
says  was  got  up,  and  did  so  much  mischief,  he  wrote  the 
despatch  to  which  I  have  referred,  and  he  now  deplores  the 
agitation  which  led  him  to  write  it.  Well,  what  was  done  ? 
A  Commission  was  appointed  with  much  solemn  form  ;  but 
care  was  taken  to  pack  that  Commission,  partly  at  the  time 
and  partly  later  on,  with  men  considered  safe.  So  that  while 
one  or  two  good  men  were  members  of  it,  they  should  be  always 
in  a  minority.  The  result  is  that,  instead  of  affording  redress, 
it  has  added  infinitely  to  the  disgrace  of  Turkey  :  by  its  delays, 
by  violence,  by  obstruction,  by  intimidation,  by  what  it  has 
done,  and  by  v/hat  it  has  not  done  ;  finally,  by  those  acquittals 
which  caused  at  last  Mr.  Baring's  indignant  withdrawal  from 
a  scene  where  he  did  not  wish  or  could  not  bear  longer  to 
witness  a  prostitution  of  justice.  Well,  we  know  what  has 
been  done  as  to  Shefket  Pasha  and  the  rest.  Why  is  it  that 
the  offenders  named  in  the  Papers  laid  before  us  remain 
unpunished  ?  It  is  because  the  miscreants  possessed  instruc- 
tions to  act  as  they  did  from  persons  still  higher  in  the  Otto- 
man Government.  These  persons  in  high  places,  it  is  now  too 
plain,  directed  these  outrages,  for  which  a  show  was  made  in 
some  instances  of  trying  the  perpetrators,  and  in  other  instances 
apologies  were  made  for  failure  to  apprehend  them.  Every 
portion  of  the  conduct  of  Turkey  in  regard  to  these  massacres 
possessed  a  dramatic  unity  and  integrity.  I  make  bold, 
without  asking  the  House  to  hear  the  repetition  of  the  numerous 
details,  to  say  that  I  have  myself  demonstrated  it  in  a  tract 
now  before  the  world,  and  founded  on  the  highest  evidence. 
Follow  it  out.  Examine  it  carefully.  Everything  comes 
home  to  the  door  of  the  Porte  itself.  Even  if  Shefket  Pasha 
had  been  punished,  why  should  the  tool  only  be  punished 
and  not  also  the  hand  that  used  it  ?  And  yet  not  only  is  not 
that  the  case,  but  we  find  Abdul  Kerim,  the  man  who  gave 


438  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

him  the  instruction,  appointed  to  the  highest  command  of  the 
Turkish  Army  now  massed  on  the  Danube.  It  seems  almost 
idle  to  argue  in  the  face  of  the  evidence  we  have  in  reference 
to  these  cases  ;  and  the  Blue  Book  just  placed  in  our  hands 
has  added  new  horrors  to  those  with  which  we  were  before 
but  too  abundantly  supplied.  It  will  be  remembered  that, 
as  a  refinement  of  wickedness  unknown  anywhere  else  in  the 
world,  Consul  Schuyler  charged  upon  Selim  Effendi,  who 
was  employed  in  these  inquiries,  that  he  tortured  prisoners 
in  prison  to  compel  them  to  give  evidence  of  such  a  kind  as 
suited  his  purpose.  Selim  Effendi  addressed  a  letter  to  me,  as  I 
had  referred  to  the  charge,  and  said  that  it  was  very  hard  upon 
him  to  be  made  the  subject  of  such  an  accusation,  that  all  the 
proceedings  in  the  Court  were  perfectly  open,  and  that  nothing 
of  the  kind  could  have,  or  had  occurred.  But  the  charge  was 
not  as  to  what  had  occurred  in  the  Court ;  it  related  to  what 
had  occurred  secretly  in  prison.  He  answered  the  charge  which 
was  not  made  and  passed  by  the  charge  that  was  made.  In 
reply  to  his  letter,  which  was  perfectly  becoming  and  courteous, 
I  addressed  a  letter  to  him  and  pointed  out  this  fact ;  adding 
that  he  would  doubtless  answer  the  charge,  which  rested  on  the 
authority  of  Mr.  Schuyler.  Well,  that  was  four  months  ago, 
and  not  another  word  have  I  heard  from  or  of  him. 

We  have,  Sir,  other  cases  of  a  most  loathsome  and  revolting 
kind  in  the  Blue  Book  that  has  been  recently  placed  before  us, 
as  to  which  an  English  Vice-Consul  says,  at  page  46  of  the 
Blue  Book,  circulated  May  5th,  that  the  evidence  left  him 
absolutely  no  room  to  doubt ;  and  of  these  he  gives  the  most 
painful  and  horrible  details.  I  will  not  dwell  upon  them,  but, 
as  the  volume  is  in  the  hands  of  members,  will  spare  them  the 
pain.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  they  were  systematically  carried 
on  by  Suleiman  Aga.  When  the  facts  were  made  known,  how 
was  he  punished  ?  He  was  deprived  of  his  sword  for  three 
days  ;  and  was  then  consoled  by  being  retained  in  his  office 
of  Chief  of  Police,  which  he  holds  to  this  day.  The  Vice- 
Consul  gives  an  account  which  shows  that  these  tortures  were 
inflicted  on  the  people,  and  especially  on  the  priests,  to  make 
them  give  particular  evidence. 

Suffice  it,  Sir,  on  the  whole,  to  say  that  the  evidence  of 
which  I  have  here  given  but  a  few  points,  when  taken  together, 
is  conclusive.     The  outrages  and  massacres  in  Bulgaria  were 


GLADSTONE  439 

not  the  acts  of  the  Bashi-Bazouks,  or  the  Regulars,  or  of  the 
Mussulman  population,  except  as  mere  instruments  of  the 
Porte.  As  instruments  they  are  guilty,  and  as  instruments 
alone.  These  massacres  were  not  accident,  they  were  not 
caprice,  they  were  not  passion.  They  were  system,  they  were 
method,  they  were  policy,  they  were  principle.  They  were 
the  things  done  in  Damascus  in  1860  ;  and  I  may  say  that  the 
Liberal  Government  of  that  day  took  up  those  massacres  in 
a  very  different  manner  from  that  in  which  Her  Majesty's 
Government  has  proceeded,  so  that,  under  the  pressure  then 
exerted  by  the  European  Powers,  the  Porte  was  compelled 
to  hang  a  Pasha.  Like  deeds  were  done  also  during  the  Greek 
Revolution  ;  and  again  and  again  they  will  be  done,  until 
the  Turkish  Government  finds  that  there  is  some  adequate 
authority  determined  to  say  that  they  shall  not  be  done  again. 
If  these  things  cannot  be  denied — and  I  know  they  cannot 
be  denied — are  we  to  continue  this  miserable  farce — for  so  I 
must  call  it,  since  this  it  appears  to  have  become — of  expostula- 
tion ?  You  do  not  expostulate  with  malefactors  in  your  own 
country" — you  punish  them.  The  Home  Secretary  would 
consider  it  a  senseless  proceeding  to  expostulate  with  a  mur- 
derer, and  ask  him  not  to  commit  such  a  crime  again  ;  or  even 
to  protest  against  his  committing  it.  But  with  respect  to 
Turkey,  we  know  exactly  the  process,  and  how  it  is  managed 
from  beginning  to  end.  When  there  occurs  some  crime  or 
outrage,  if  there  are  not  foreign  Agents  near,  no  notice  is  taken 
of  it,  provided  a  Mohammedan  be  the  guilty  party.  If  it  be  a 
Christian,  it  is  a  very  different  matter.  For  example,  you  wiU 
find  in  these  Papers  an  account  of  a  Turkish  boy  who  seriously 
wounded  a  Christian  woman.  She  was  pregnant,  and  she  was 
seemingly  about  to  die  ;  but  the  report  of  the  Consul  is  that 
unfortunately  there  was  no  law  in  the  country  by  which  the 
Turkish  boy,  being  only  a  boy,  could  be  punished.  Would 
that  apply  to  a  Christian  boy  ?  In  Miss  Mackenzie's  and  Miss 
Irby's  most  sensible  and  dispassionate  work,  you  will  find  an 
account  of  a  struggle  between  a  Turkish  boy  and  a  Christian 
boy.  They  fought  desperately.  The  Christian  boy  fought  in 
self-defence.  They  were  both  so  much  injured  that  they  kept 
their  beds  for  several  weeks.  The  Turkish  boy  died,  and  what 
happened  ?  There  was  plenty  of  law  to  be  found  then.  The 
Christian  boy  was  condemned  to  be  hanged  ;    and  the  Grand 


440  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

Vizier,  who  was  travelling  through  the  Province,  delayed  his 
departure  in  order  to  see  him  executed  ;  and  thus  he  gives  the 
Christians  a  solemn  warning  of  the  consequences  that  would 
follow  their  resisting  injury.  One  and  the  same  lesson  runs 
through  all  these  transactions.  "  You  rayahs  are  allowed  not 
to  enjoy  life,  but  to  live.  Your  tribute  is  the  condition  of  your 
life.  You  must  take  your  life  on  the  conditions  we  name  ; 
and  if  you  raise  your  hand — it  may  be  to  secure  justice  by  force 
— you  will  be  the  subject  of  crimes  and  outrages  which,  what- 
ever their  nature  may  be,  will  become  virtue  and  public  service 
when  committed  for  the  sake  of  maintaining  Ottoman  dominion 
over  the  unbeliever  whom  he  has  a  right  to  rule."  What  I 
have  said  may  sound  like  exaggeration.  It  is  no  such  thing. 
It  is,  I  maintain,  a  plain  matter-of-fact  description  of  the  way 
in  which  Turkish  power  has  been  maintained.  Nay,  more  ; 
it  is  the  way  in  which  alone  this  unnatural  domination  can  be 
maintained,  with  ever-increasing  difficulty,  and  upon  occasion 
with  ever-increasing  horror,  until  the  day  of  its  doom  shall 
come. 

I  pointed  out  last  year  that  in  the  Autumn  of  1875  a  body 
of  Herzegovinian  refugees  had  been  invited  to  go  back  to  their 
homes.  In  an  evil  hour  they  accepted  the  invitation,  and 
returned,  escorted,  as  they  had  taken  unusual  precautions, 
by  a  force  of  Turkish  Regular  troops  ;  but  they  were  massacred 
by  some  of  the  Beys,  their  Mussulman  landlords.  It  was  done 
in  the  sight  of  the  escort ;  and  the  escort  raised  not  a  finger 
in  their  defence.  This  was  at  a  time  when  the  Turkish  Govern- 
ment and  Consul  Holmes  were  inviting  the  refugees  to 
return  home.  The  facts  were  made  known  to  Lord  Derby  ; 
he  addressed  to  the  proper  authorities  an  indignant  despatch, 
demanding  that  there  should  be  an  inquiry,  followed  by 
punishment  of  the  offenders  and  redress  to  the  injured  persons. 
No  further  notice  has,  however,  been  taken  of  the  matter. 
His  despatch  remains  like  water  poured  out  upon  the  sand. 
There  was  probably  a  promise  of  inquiry  ;  this  is  one  of  the 
usual  shifts  ;  and  I  may  state  on  the  authority  of  Mr.  Baring's 
last  Report,  that  this  is  the  uniform  course  pursued  by  the 
Turkish  authorities. 

What  I  want  to  know,  therefore  is,  whether  we  are  to  con- 
tinue to  make  ourselves  ridiculous,  and  at  the  same  time  utterly 
to  delude  the  world  by  what  the  Government  is  pleased  to 


GLADSTONE  441 

call  remonstrating  upon  these  subjects.  This  matter  grows 
worse  and  worse.  We  have  in  the  papers  which  were  delivered 
to  us  two  days  back  a  new  crop  of  horrors  reported  from 
Erzeroum,  as  having  occurred  no  longer  ago  than  on  the 
14th  of  March.  A  body  of  troops  went  into  a  village  and 
demanded  food  and  money.  These  demands  were,  of  course, 
complied  with.  They  then  proceeded  to  maltreat  the  men, 
and  to  violate  the  women  and  girls,  several  of  whom  died  in 
consequence  of  the  treatment  to  which  they  were  subjected. 
On  this  occasion  again  an  energetic  telegram  was  despatched 
in  the  first  instance.  Afterwards  Lord  Derby  spoke  with 
bated  breath,  and  desired  that  the  attention  of  the  Porte 
"  might  be  called  "  to  the  matter.  It  mattered  not  a  straw 
whether  his  language  were  strong  or  weak.  It  is  the  old  story. 
As  on  the  previous  occasion,  nothing  came  of  his  demand. 
My  contention  is  that  this  conduct  is  not  compatible  with  the 
decency  of  the  case  or  with  the  honour  of  England  ;  and  that 
if  no  result  is  to  follow  upon  communications  of  the  kind  to 
which  I  allude  they  ought  not  to  be  made.  It  is  bad  enough 
to  say  that  you  will  take  no  notice  of  crimes  such  as  those  ; 
but  it  is  worse  to  notice  them  in  a  way  which  you  know  full 
weU  can  produce  no  result,  yet  which  deludes  this  country 
and  the  world  by  seeming  to  promise  one,  and  by  making  a 
vain  show  of  interest  in  the  condition  of  the  Christian  subjects 
of  the  Porte. 

Passing  to  the  second  of  my  Resolutions,  let  me  refer  to  the 
daring  assertion  which  has  been  made  by  the  opponents  of  the 
subject-races,  that  the  outrages  have  ceased.  We  have  had 
no  Papers  given  us  for  three  months  ;  and  the  Papers,  which 
were  circulated  so  lately  as  the  day  before  yesterday,  supply 
us  with  no  recent  intelligence  upon  the  subject.  I  take, 
however,  such  rather  stale  intelligence  as  they  do  give.  The 
only  evidence  which  the  Government  has  afforded  to  us  on  the 
point  shows  that  up  to  the  20th  of  February  last  the  same 
atrocious  and  horrible  state  of  things,  concerning  which 
complaints  had  been  previously  made,  continued  in  Bulgaria. 

In  those  Papers,  Mr.  Baring  states  that  the  lives  and  property 
of  Christians  were  scarcely  safer  at  the  end  of  February  than 
they  were  in  May  last  year.  I  ask  the  House,  then,  to  support 
the  resolution  which  alleges  that  the  Porte  has  lost  all  claim 
to  our  moral  as  well  as  our  material  support. 


442  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

Shall  I  be  told  that  we  have  withdrawn  from  Turkey  our 
moral  as  well  as  our  material  support  ?  This  is  a  point  at 
present  very  doubtful,  which  ought  to  be  made  clear.  It  is 
true  that  we  have  denounced  the  perpetrators  of  these  outrages. 
I  say  we  have  denounced  the  wrong  people.  These  perpetra- 
tors were  only  tools.  That  they  were  tools  only,  is  demon- 
strated by  the  fact  that  they  remained  unpunishable,  free, 
rewarded,  decorated.  Why  is  this  ?  Because  they  acted  in 
obedience  to  orders — written  orders  in  some  cases — and  from 
the  highest  authorities.  I  have  spoken  of  Abdul  Kerim  ; 
but  unless  other  high  personages  are  very  much  calumniated, 
they,  too,  are  implicated  in  the  guilt  of  these  proceedings. 
Assuredly,  no  name  is  more  odious  than  the  name  of  Midhat 
Pasha  to  the  Christians  of  Bulgaria.  There  is  in  Turkey  an 
admittedly  intolerable  Government.  Has  it  improved  during 
the  last  quarter  of  a  century  ?  I  am  responsible,  for  one,  for 
having  then  believed,  on  the  great  authority  of  Lord 
Palmerston,  and  on  the  even  higher  authority  of  Lord  Stratford 
de  Redcliffe  with  his  large  experience  of  the  Porte,  that  its 
government  might  be  improved.  Some  men,  with  deeper 
insight  than  that  possessed  at  the  time  by  any  poHtician, 
knew  that  the  case  was  hopeless.  A  quarter  of  a  century  ago, 
however,  we  thought  that  we  ought  not  to  despair  of  the 
improvement  of  Turkey,  as  long  as  a  ray  of  hope  remained. 
Since  then  a  time  surely  sufficient  for  trial  has  elapsed,  during 
which  perfect  peace  has  been  secured  for  Turkey  from  without, 
and  she  has  had  no  evils  or  mischiefs  to  deal  with,  except 
those  provoked  and  promoted  by  her  own  gross  and  monstrous 
misgovernment.  But  have  things  improved  in  Turkey  in 
that  period  ?  I  believe  that,  upon  the  whole,  instead  of 
improving,  they  have  become  worse.  I  do  not,  of  course, 
question  the  local  improvements,  which  have  been  the  result 
of  an  increase  in  the  number  of  Consuls  and  Foreign  Agents  ; 
because  wherever  a  Consul  or  a  Foreign  Agent  resides  there  is 
usually  a  Httle  precinct  formed,  within  which  comparative 
security  is  enjoyed.  Nor  do  I  doubt  that  here  and  there  some 
partial,  indecisive  measures  have  been  adopted  for  the  purpose 
of  putting  into  execution  a  portion  of  the  promises  of  the  Porte. 
But  since  1854  there  has  been  in  Turkey  a  great  increase  in  the 
centralization  of  the  Ottoman  system,  and  in  the  taxation  ; 
and  a  multiplication  of  the  agents  of  the  Government  in  the 


GLADSTONE  443 

persons  of  those  whom  it  is  a  mockery  to  call  police.  The 
result  has  been  that  there  has  been  an  aggravation  of  Moham- 
medan as  well  as  Christian  grievances  ;  and  there  is  far  more 
discontent  among  the  Mussulman  inhabitants  of  Turkey  now, 
than  existed  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago.  Mr.  Baring,  in  refer- 
ring to  the  Turkish  pohce,  states  that  they  are  httle  or  no 
better  than  organized  bands  of  brigands.  But  this  Force, 
which  is  one  of  the  greatest  curses  of  the  country,  is  a  Force 
which  does  not  belong  to  the  older  Ottoman  system.  Again, 
of  late,  Turkey  has  acquired  a  passion  for  a  National  Debt, 
for  large  standing  armies,  for  ironclad  fleets,  and  for  improved 
arms  ;  and  the  result  has  been  that  a  great  increase  of  revenue 
was  necessary.  It  has  been  raised  in  a  disproportionate 
degree  from  the  Christian  Slav  Provinces,  and  it  is  this  endea- 
vour to  obtain  an  enormous  revenue  which  has  been  one  of  the 
greatest  curses  of  the  country.  [The  Chancellor  of  the 
Exchequer  :  "  Hear,  hear  !  "]  The  right  hon.  gentleman  cheers 
that  statement.  But  what  remedy  is  he  prepared  to  propose 
for  this  state  of  things  ?  Why,  he  is  prepared  to  look  on  and 
to  expostulate.  I  say  that  it  is  better,  it  is  more  honest,  not 
to  look  on,  and  to  withhold  this  expostulation,  rather  than  to 
profess  our  interest  and  to  pursue  a  method  such  as  the  one 
now  in  use. TAnd  here  I  may,  perhaps,  be  allowed  to  offer  a 
suggestion  to  the  right  hon.  gentleman.  Why  should  he  not/ 
prepare  printed  forms  of  expostulation  ?  There  might  be 
blanks  for  the  number  of  villages  burnt,  for  the  number  of  men 
killed,  and  for  the  number  of  women  violated  ;  and  there  ought 
to  be  another  blank  to  be  filled  up  as  occasion  required  by  the 
word  '*  expostulate  "  or  "  represent  "  or  "  regret,"  or  if  neces- 
sary, "  protest."  This  would  save  a  considerable  amount  of 
labour  at  the  Foreign  Office,  and  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exche- 
quer, as  the  sovereign  guardian  of  the  public  purse,  might 
really,  by  the  simple  means  that  I  suggest,  effect  some  reduction 
in  the  cost  of  that  estabhshment.  This  is  a  sorry  subject  on 
which  to  jest.  But  it  is  the  Government  who  have  made  a 
sorry  jest  of  a  matter  in  itself  very  solemn.  It  is  a  sorry  jest 
constantly  to  reiterate  expostulations  of  this  character  with  the 
knowledge  founded  on  long  experience,  that  as  a  general 
rule  they  will  work  without  being  followed  by  any  result.  The 
Porte,  which  well  understands  the  force  of  words,  knows  that 
our  expostulations  begin  in  words  and  that  they  end  in  words  ; 


444  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

and  it  is  time  that  the  people  of  England  and  the  people  of 
Turkish  Christian  Provinces  should  begin  to  understand  as 
muchjj 

— rfappears  to  me  that  if  Her  Majesty's  Government  desired 
really  to  pursue  an  effective  poHcy,  they  should  have  gone 
further  than  I  have  yet  indicated  ;  but  they  would  have  done 
a  great  deal  if  they  had  gone  as  far  as  I  have  hitherto  suggested. 
They  would  have  conveyed  an  amount  of  confidence  to  the 
minds  of  the  people  of  this  country  which  they  are  now  very 
far  from  feeling. 

But,  Sir,  in  my  opinion,  a  just  denunciation  of  outrages 
which  former  events  had  placed  within  our  cognizance 
and  a  real,  not  an  equivocal  withdrawal  of  support  from 
Turkey,  though  they  are  more  than  we  can  yet  be  sure  of  having 
obtained,  are  very  far  from  filling  up  the  measure  of  our 
duties  and  our  honourable  obligations.  I  argue  that  we  ought 
to  use  our  influence  in  the  great  Council  of  Europe  for  the 
effectual  deliverance  of  these  Provinces  from  oppression,  but 
not  for  their  transfer  to  any  foreign  dominion.  Now  it  is  a 
foreign  agency,  not  under  our  control,  to  which  we  have  chosen 
to  make  over  the  fulfilment  of  engagements  which  are  ours. 
I  must,  therefore,  consider  our  relation  to  that  foreign  Power. 
We  need  entertain  no  fear  at  all  that  the  action  of  Russia  in 
the  present  effort  will  endanger  British  interests.  Russia  is 
not  mad  enough  to  touch  British  interests  in  the  execution  of 
the  purpose  she  has  in  hand.  We  have,  however,  given  Russia 
a  magnificent  opportunity,  of  which  she  can  avail  herself, 
to  plead  truly  that  what  she  asks  is  what  Europe  asks  ;  and 
the  difference  between  her  and  other  nations  is  that  they  are 
content  to  put  up  with,  and  she  is  not  content  to  put  up  with, 
Turkey's  infatuated  refusal  to  give  securities  for  the  improve- 
ment of  her  Government.  You  may  say  that  she  is  pursuing 
selfish  objects  ;  but,  if  that  be  true,  that  is  an  additional 
condemnation  of  your  policy,  because  if  she  was  untrustworthy, 
why  did  you  leave  her  to  act  alone  and  unrestrained  in  accom- 
plishing this  work  ?  I  had  hoped  that  Her  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment might  even  have  been  disposed  to  have  accompanied 
me  thus  far,  and  that  we  might  all  look  forward  to  the  estabhsh- 
ment  in  these  Provinces  of  local  self-government  and  local 
liberty,  and  so  saving  them  from  transfer  to  any  other  foreign 
dominion.     In  this,  as  in  other  hopes,  I  am  baffled  ;  and  instead 


GLADSTONE  445 

of  a  wise  co-operation  in  the  endeavour  to  effect  a  great  good, 
I  am  called  upon  to  consider  the  misdeeds  of  Russia.  We  are 
told  that  Russia  has  been  guilty  of  the  greatest  cruelties  in 
Poland.  I  hear  hon.  members  opposite  cheering  that  state- 
ment ;  but  no  cheers  came  from  that  quarter  of  the  House 
when,  at  the  time  those  cruelties  were  being  committed  in 
Poland,  remonstrances  against  them  were  moved  from  this 
side  of  the  House.  I  put  aside,  for  the  present,  cases  in  which 
the  tongue  of  calumny  had  been  busy,  or  cases  in  which  there 
may  be  a  doubt  about  the  facts.  Apart  from  such  cases,  there 
have  been  at  least  two  occasions  on  which,  in  my  view,  the 
conduct  of  that  Power  cannot  be  defended.  The  first  occasion 
was  when  the  Emperor  Nicholas  took  up  arms  to  put  down 
by  force  Hungarian  liberties — the  liberties  of  those  Hungar- 
ians who,  at  the  time,  were  very  anxious  to  interest  the  world 
in  their  own  affairs,  but  who  do  not  now  appear  desirous  of 
extending  those  liberties  to  others  ;  a  fact  which,  had  we 
known  at  the  time  it  was  to  occur,  might  have  somewhat 
modified  our  feelings  in  their  favour.  The  claims  of  those 
Hungarians,  however,  were  at  the  time  just,  and  we  thought 
that  the  proceedings  of  the  Emperor  of  Russia,  who  lent  to 
Austria  the  effectual  aid  of  his  armies  in  suppressing  them, 
were  unjust  and  unwarrantable  ;  but  I  never  heard  any  objec- 
tion to  his  conduct  proceed  from  hon.  members  opposite. 
Again,  as  to  Poland,  I  remember  that  as  late  as  during  the 
second  government  of  Lord  Palmerston,  a  motion  was  made 
by  Mr.  Horseman  on  the  subject  of  the  proceedings  of  Russia 
in  Poland,  but  Mr.  Horseman  was  not  one  of  the  Party  who 
sit  opposite  ;  on  the  contrary,  he  was  a  gentleman  who  on  all 
questions  of  foreign  policy  expressed  the  strongest  Liberal 
opinions,  and  the  support  which  his  Motion  received  proceeded 
almost  wholly  from  this  side  of  the  House.  One  word  with 
regard  to  the  Papers  which  have  just  been  laid  upon  the 
table  of  the  House  with  reference  to  the  misdeeds  of  the  Rus- 
sians in  Poland.  That  paper  purports  to  be  presented  by 
command  of  Her  Majesty,  which  means  that  it  has  been 
presented  at  the  instance  of  Her  Majesty's  Government.  [Sir 
H.  Drummond  Wolff :  "By  command  of  Her  Majesty,  in 
pursuance  of  an  Address."]  [Lord  John  Manners  :  ''It  was 
moved  for  from  the  opposite  side  of  the  House."]  I  have  no 
doubt  it  was  moved  for  from  the  "  opposite  "  side  of  the  House  ; 


446  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

my  hon.  friends  on  this  side  of  the  House  have  always  been 
desirous  of  exhibiting  the  cruelty  in  Poland  ;  but  the  disposi- 
tion of  the  Government  and  their  friends  to  hold  up  to  repro- 
bation the  cruelty  in  Poland  appears  to  me  to  be  of  much  more 
recent  origin.  Now,  Sir,  for  my  own  part,  I  rejoice  in  the  fact 
that  the  misdeeds  of  a  Government  should  come  to  light, 
come  how  they  may  ;  but  I  think  this  mode  of  proceeding 
was  eminently  a  shabby  mode.  You  produce  the  misdeeds 
of  other  Governments,  do  you  produce  your  own  ?  Will  you 
lay  on  the  Table  a  detail  of  the  proceedings  by  which  the 
Mutiny  was  suppressed  in  India  ?  I  cannot  recollect  a  more 
distinctly  culpable  proceeding  on  the  part  of  any  country, 
than  the  slaughter  of  the  Dyaks  by  Her  Majesty's  naval  forces 
and  by  Sir  James  Brooke.  But  that  evil  act  was  discussed, 
vindicated,  and  approved  in  this  House.  I  will  give  you 
another  case.  There  is  an  official  Report  of  my  own  in  the 
Colonial  Office,  rendered  in  1858-9,  when  Lord  Carnarvon  was 
Under-Secretary,  which  sets  forth  the  proceedings  of  the  British 
Government  in  Cephalonia,  at  a  time  when  a  predial  rising 
had  taken  place.  It  was  a  serious  predial  rising,  which  official 
panic  or  the  selfish  alarms  of  a  class  magnified  into  a  rebelhon. 
As  such  it  was  insignificant,  almost  ludicrous.  But  martial 
law  was  maintained  in  the  island  for  six  weeks.  I  believe  one 
of  our  soldiers  was  wounded.  A  score  of  the  people  were  shot, 
and  many  scores  were  flogged,  and  the  punishment  of  flogging 
is  one  viewed  by  the  Greek  population,  as  I  have  often  been 
assured,  with  a  horror  even  greater  than  capital  punishment. 
Will  you  lay  that  Report  on  the  Table  ?  What  is  the  meaning 
of  producing  charges  against  other  countries  when  you  are  not 
prepared  to  produce  your  own  ?  [An  hon.  Member  :  "  The 
Cephalonian  Report,  I  think,  has  been  laid  on  the  Table."] 
I  think  not  or  I  must  have  known  of  it.  And  I  proceed  with 
my  general  argument. 

One  of  my  greatest  objections  to  the  policy  of  Her  Majesty's 
Government  has  always  been  since  we  began  to  attend  to  it  at 
the  end  of  last  July,  that  it  tends  so  extravagantly  to  facihtate 
the  execution  of  the  most  selfish  aims  that  Russia  could  possibly 
entertain,  and  to  enhance  her  influence  and  her  power.  It  is 
a  tremendous  thing  to  infuse  into  the  mind  of  the  Christian 
subjects  of  the  Porte  the  conviction  that  they  have  no  other 
hope,  no  other  ally  but  Russia.     It  is  hardly  possible  to  dispute 


GLADSTONE  447 

that  that  has  been  the  effect  of  the  pohcy  of  Her  Majesty's 
Government.  That  the  misgovemment  of  the  Slav  Provinces 
should  cease  is  my  first  and  great  object,  but  I  confess  it  would 
be  with  qualified  satisfaction,  although  with  a  real  satisfaction, 
that  I  should  hear  of  the  cessation  of  that  misgovemment, 
unless  I  felt  that  a  healthy  growth  of  local  liberty  would  come 
into  the  place  of  the  abominations  now  afflicting  these  Pro- 
vinces. I  had  hoped  that  something  might  be  obtained  from 
the  Government  with  reference  to  the  first  and  second — and 
even  perhaps  the  third — Resolutions,  which  would  have  enabled 
me  to  avoid  trespassing  at  so  much  length  on  the  indulgence 
of  the  House.  With  regard,  however,  to  the  fourth  Resolution, 
I  was  absolutely  hopeless.  I  admit  that  it  challenges  the  course 
of  the  Government,  and  suggests  another  course.  If  you  wish 
for  the  sake  of  humanity,  for  the  sake  of  the  peace  of  Euroj>e, 
for  the  sake  of  the  obligations  this  country  has  incurred,  to 
close  the  Eastern  Question,  it  cannot  be  satisfactorily  done 
except  by  action  which  shall  be  both  united  and  real.  And 
my  complaint  against  Her  Majesty's  Government  is  that 
whenever  they  have  seemed  to  concur  in  promoting  united 
action  it  has  always  been  done  under  conditions  which  have 
made  that  united  action  useless  and  even  visionary.  Do 
not  let  me  conceal  my  own  belief.  I  have  in  my  fourth  Resolu- 
tion expressed  the  strong  opinion  I  entertain — namely,  that 
the  policy  of  1826  and  1827  was  a  wise  and  just  pohcy.  But 
that  was  a  policy  that  had  no  more  the  approval  of  what  I 
may  call  the  West-end  of  London,  than  the  Christian  cause 
has  now.  That  portion  of  England  does  not  express  the  true 
sentiments  of  England.  Looking  over  all  the  great  achieve- 
ments that  have  made  the  last  half-century  illustrious,  not  one 
of  them  would  have  been  effected  if  the  opinions  of  the  West- 
end  of  London  had  prevailed.  The  Test  Act  would  not  have 
been  repealed.  Parliament  would  not  have  been  reformed. 
Slavery  would  not  have  been  abolished,  Municipal  Corpora- 
tions would  not  have  been  opened.  The  Com  Laws  would  not 
have  been  repealed  ;  nor  Free  Trade  estabhshed  ;  nor  the 
Tariff  reduced  to  a  few  lines  ;  nor  the  Navigation  Laws  done 
away  ;  nor  the  universities  opened  ;  nor  the  Church  of  Ireland 
disestablished  ;  nor  the  Land  Tenures  of  that  country  re- 
enacted.  I  might  extend  this  long  hst.  I  regard  it  with 
sorrow  and  misgiving  that  the  nation  has  ever  been  in  advance 


448  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

of  those  who  ought  to  have  been  its  leaders.  But  the  fact 
being  so,  I  cannot  relax  my  efforts  in  this  cause  out  of  defer- 
ence to  the  opinion  of  what  I  have  called  the  West-end  of 
London. 

But  then  I  am  told  that  there  has  been,  in  relation  to  this 
question,  inaction  on  the  part  of  Liberal  Governments.  Now, 
Sir,  this  is  a  subject  much  too  wide  to  be  disposed  of  by  a 
taunt,  or  by  any  incidental  remark.  It  is  a  question  of  history  ; 
and  if  a  motion  were  made  for  a  complete  inquiry  into  the  con- 
duct of  all  Governments  since  the  Crimean  War  with  regard  to 
this  great  question,  I,  for  one,  would  not  object  to  it.  In  my 
opinion,  it  is  totally  impossible  for  any  man  or  for  any  Govern- 
ment in  Western  Europe  to  raise  the  Turkish  Question,  simply 
of  his  or  their  own  motion.  How  was  it  possible  for  us  during 
the  Franco-German  struggle,  or  during  the  protracted  contro- 
versy that  resulted  in  the  Geneva  Arbitration  to  raise  the 
Turkish  Question  ?  Nay,  even  if  we  had  been  more  free,  there 
were  no  events  in  Turkey  on  which  we  could  take  our  stand. 
There  was,  so  to  speak,  no  point  of  departure.  There  was  no 
revolt  of  which  we  could  examine  the  cause  ;  there  were  no 
massacres  of  which  we  could  expose  the  guilt.  In  1860  mas- 
sacres did  occur  in  Syria,  which  may  be  partially  compared 
with  the  massacres  in  Bulgaria  in  1876.  A  Liberal  Govern- 
ment was  then  in  office  ;  and  observe  the  very  different  course 
pursued  by  that  Government.  Whether  we  had  been  wise 
and  right  in  all  things  I  know  not.  I  am  by  no  means  pre- 
pared to  claim  for  us  off-hand  a  sentence  of  universal  acquittal ; 
but  this  I  know,  that  at  a  very  early  date,  in  the  affair  of  the 
Lebanon,  Lord  Russell  wrote  a  letter  in  which  he  positively 
announced  that  a  British  squadron  would  be  sent  to  the  coast 
of  Syria,  and  that,  if  necessary,  marines  would  be  landed.  At 
the  same  time  France  declared  her  intention  of  sending  troops 
to  Syria.  We  heard  nothing  then  about  fears  of  provoking 
Turkish  valour  to  desperation  by  these  rather  decided  methods. 
On  the  28th  of  July,  Lord  Russell  said  that  the  remaining 
points,  which  were  of  essential  importance  appeared  to  be  to 
obtain  the  assent  of  the  Porte  to  the  intervention  of  foreign 
troops,  and  the  fixing  of  a  time  for  the  intervention  of  those 
troops  to  cease.  On  that  the  consent  of  Turkey  was  given, 
and  the  foreign  intervention  did  take  place.  And  how  was 
the  consent  of  Turkey  given  ?      It  was  given  in  a  Conference 


GLADSTONE  449 

by  Safvet  Pasha,  on  the  27th  of  August,  and  in  terms  which 
were  very  remarkable.  You  might  have  had  just  the  same 
terms  now  if  you  had  chosen  to  seek  them  in  the  same  manner, 
They  are  these  : 

"  It  is  owing  to  the  counsels  of  the  Representatives  of  the  Powers 
and  the  vision  held  out  to  us  of  foreign  troops  landing  on  our  territories, 
notwithstanding  the  refusal  which  we  should  have  given  to  the  con- 
clusion of  the  Convention,  that  we  have  been  reduced  to  choose  the  lesser 
of  two  evils." 

The  consent  of  the  Turkish  Government  was  obtained ;  but 
it  was  given  in  view  of  this — that  they  had  before  them  the 
vision  of  foreign  troops  landed  in  Syria,  notwithstanding  their 
refusal,  and  they  were  reduced  to  the  choice  of  the  lesser  of 
two  evils.  I  ask  for  a  comparison  between  our  course  through- 
out in  the  matter  of  the  Lebanon  and  the  course  of  the  existing 
Government  since  the  Autumn  of  1875.  I  might  refer  to  other 
matters  ;   but  I  will  not  now  pursue  the  subject. 

I  will  next  say  a  few  words  only  on  the  nature  of  our  obliga- 
tions in  this  particular  case.  It  is  much  too  late,  in  my  opinion, 
to  argue  whether  we  are  bound  to  take  up  the  case  of  the 
Christians  in  Turkey  or  not.  We  might  have  argued  that 
question  before  the  Crimean  War.  But  in  the  Crimean  War 
we  did  two  things  ;  and  I  must  repeat  the  challenge  I  have 
made  to  the  Government  with  regard  to  those  two  things,  for 
they  are  of  vital  importance  in  this  great  controversy.  The 
first  was  that  we  abolished  the  power  of  interference  which  pre- 
viously existed,  and  which  was  lodged  in  the  hands  of  Russia. 
The  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  and  the  Secretary  of  State 
for  War  have  told  me  that  they  do  not  admit  that  such  a  power 
of  interference  existed.  I  think  it  is  possible  that  they  may 
have  misunderstood  my  statement ;  because  I  am  quite  certain 
that  if  they  hold  that  proposition  in  the  terms  I  have  just 
stated,  they  are  holding  it  in  the  face  of  history  and  of  law 
as  recognized  in  Europe  for  a  hundred  years.  They  may  have 
understood  me  to  say  that  Russia  had,  by  the  Treaty  of  Kain- 
ardji,  a  Protectorate  over  the  Christians.  Now,  I  admit  that  she 
had  no  Protectorate  over  the  Christians.  A  Protectorate  is  a 
scheme  involving  direct  and  positive  powers.  She  had  no 
such  powers  in  regard  to  the  Christians  in  Turkey  generally. 
What  she  had  was  this — a  stipulation  from  the  Porte  that  the 
Porte  should  firmly  protect  the  Christian  religion   and  its 

29— (2170) 


450  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

churches.  Of  that  stipulation  she  had  a  right  to  require  the 
fulfilment,  as  well  as  of  every  other  stipulation  in  her  Treaties. 
There  is  not  the  least  doubt  that  it  is  a  distinct  stipulation. 
To  set  up  the  doctrine  that  this  distinct  and  substantive 
stipulation  is  a  mere  Preamble,  that  it  is  absorbed  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  Article,  is  really  little  less  than  ridiculous.  The 
latter  part  of  the  article  is  separated  from  the  earher  part  by 
the  Italian  word  which  can  only  be  translated  by  "  further- 
more," or  "  moreover,"  or  some  equivalent.  Russia  had  a 
covenant  with  the  Porte  for  the  protection  of  those  churches, 
and  she  had  the  same  right  to  require  its  fulfilment  as  she  had 
with  respect  to  every  other  covenant  in  the  Treaty.  That, 
I  say,  cannot  be  doubted.  Now,  let  us  look  at  the  opinions 
upon  this  point.  I  quoted  the  other  day  the  opinion  of  the 
standard  historian  of  the  Turkish  Empire — Von  Hammer. 
He  expressed  the  general  historical  judgment  of  the  world 
on  this  point.  But  if  you  want  a  legal  opinion,  I  will  quote 
that  of  Bluntschh,  who  is,  I  observe,  considered  as  the  highest 
authority  as  a  jurist  at  present  living  on  the  Continent  of 
Europe.     He  says  : 

"  In  the  consciousness  of  this  duty  and  of  this  right,  Europe  has 
repeatedly  intervened  in  Turkey  as  well  before  as  after  1856.  First 
of  all,  Russia  made  a  claim  to  a  sole  protection  of  the  Greek  Christians, 
and  obtained  the  establishment  of  it  from  Turkey  by  Treaty  in  1772 
and  1812." 

There  is  the  opinion  of  Bluntschli.  It  is  not  a  controversial 
opinion  ;  he  states  it  as  a  notorious  fact,  in  a  matter  which 
has  never  been  contested.  I  am  responsible  for  the  translation  ; 
but  the  words  **  obtained  the  establishment  of  it  "  I  believe, 
fairly  represent  the  words  of  the  original.  Since  I  spoke  on 
the  matter,  I  have  referred  to  the  authority  of  Sir  Robert 
Phillimore,  and  I  find  in  him  what  I  expected.  I  have  had  the 
honour  of  his  friendship  for  half-a-century,  and  I  did  not  open 
this  question  without  having  consulted  him.  He  has  entered 
into  an  argument  to  show  that  Russia  did  not  possess  by  the 
treaty  of  Kainardji  the  claim  which  was  made  at  the  time  of 
the  Crimean  War.  In  that  we  are  all  agreed.  But  Sir  Robert 
Phillimore  has  never  denied  that  this  stipulation  for  protection 
in  the  Treaty  of  Kainardji  was  a  binding  stipulation  ;  that 
Russia  had  a  right  to  require  it  to  be  carried  into  execution, 
and  a  right  to  interfere  with  Turkey  on  a  breach  of  it,  just  as 


GLADSTONE  451 

she  had  in  regard  to  any  other  part  of  the  Treaty.  As  far  as  I 
know,  opinions  are  not  at  variance  on  this  point,  unless,  indeed, 
it  is  intended  by  the  present  Government  to  set  up  in  1877  a 
construction  never  heard  of  for  over  100  years  after  the  Treaty 
was  concluded. 

In  such  a  matter,  without  doubt,  we  cannot  omit  to  refer 
to  the  Blue  Books  of  1854.  I  must  own  that  it  has  not  been  in 
my  power  to  read  through  the  whole  of  those  Blue  Books — 
or  rather  to  re-read  them,  for  I  was  pretty  well  familiar  with 
them  at  a  former  period — and,  therefore,  it  is  possible  some 
assertion  may  be  found  in  some  part  of  them  which  more  or 
less  expresses  the  opinion  that  appears  now  to  be  maintained 
by  the  Government.  Yet  I  think  not  so,  because  I  have  looked 
over  them  as  well  as  I  could,  and  because  I  find  what  seems  to 
me  a  most  distinct  declaration  on  the  part  of  Lord  Clarendon, 
that  some  right  of  that  kind  on  the  part  of  Russia  was  acknow- 
ledged by  us.  I  recollect  myself,  taking  my  memory  for 
what  it  is  worth,  that  this  was  distinctly  our  position  in  the 
controversy.  We  held  that  Russia  misconstrued  the  Treaty, 
and  overstated  her  right ;  we  never,  I  believe,  denied  that  she 
had  some  right ;  and  accordingly  I  find,  also,  in  Book  No.  1, 
that  on  May  26th,  1853,  Baron  Brunnow  sends  in  a  Memor- 
andum, in  which  he  speaks  of  the  engagements  of  the  Porte, 
dating  from  the  Treaty  of  Kainardji,  as  granting  to  the 
Orthodox  Church  that  freedom  of  worship,  that  tranquillity  of 
conscience,  and  that  peaceable  possession  of  rights  which 
Russia  could  never  cease  to  watch  over.  In  the  same  book, 
on  the  21st  of  June,  Lord  Clarendon  says  in  reply,  on  the  part 
of  the  Government,  that  on  the  basis  of  Baron  Brunnow's 
Memorandum,  a  complete  and  satisfactory  arrangement  might 
have  been  concluded  without  compromising  the  dignity  of  the 
Emperor.  I  think,  then,  I  have  made  my  demonstration 
complete  ;  and,  if  so,  the  case  stands  thus — That  there  was  a 
Treaty  engagement,  under  which  Russia  was  entitled  to 
require  from  the  Porte  a  protection  of  the  Christians,  and  to 
resent  it  against  the  Porte  as  a  national  wrong  if  she  did  not 
protect  them.  That  right  was  entirely  destroyed  and  swept 
away  by  the  Crimean  War,  through  the  expenditure  of  our 
blood  and  treasure,  and  of  the  blood  and  treasure  of  our  Allies  ; 
and  we  could  not  thus  sweep  that  right  away,  in  my  opinion, 
without  becoming  responsible  for  the  consequences ;    without 


452  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

being  as  solemnly  bound  as  men  can  be  bound  in  faith  and 
honour  to  take  care  that  those,  for  whose  protection  it  was 
intended  should  obtain  either  the  same  thing  or  something 
better  in  its  place.  But,  besides  all  I  have  now  said,  and  even 
independently  of  this,  as  I  believe,  perfectly  irrefragable 
argument,  what  was  the  case  of  the  Crimean  War  on  the  very 
face  of  it  as  a  dry  matter  of  fact  ?  It  was  this — That  Turkey 
was  about  to  be  engaged  in  a  contest  of  which  the  probable 
result  was  her  defeat.  I  apprehend  there  was  no  doubt  of 
that.  It  was  probable  that  she  would  be  defeated.  We 
intervened  to  prevent  that  defeat.  We,  together  with  our 
Allies,  gave  her  a  new  lease  of  her  existence  ;  we  gave  her 
resources  ;  we  gave  her  the  strength,  of  which  she  has  been 
making  such  frightful  use  in  Bulgaria.  And  now  is  it  possible 
for  us,  on  any  principles  I  care  not  what,  which  will  bear  to  be 
stated  in  the  face  of  day,  so  to  put  out  of  view  the  obliga- 
tions which  our  honour  entails  on  us  as  to  say — "  We  wash 
our  hands  of  this  business,  and  wiU  have  nothing  to  do  with  it "  ? 
Much  more,  how  can  we  say — "  We  will  consent  to  pay  delicate 
attentions  to  the  Government  of  Turkey,  and  to  be  affording 
her  in  a  thousand  indirect  forms  moral  assistance  " — which  in 
many  instances  is  apt  to  glide  into  material  assistance — 
"  against  any  nation  which  may  attempt  to  carry  into  effect 
the  judgment  of  united  Europe  "  ?  I  hope  I  have  made  pretty 
clear  the  state  of  the  case,  as  it  bears  upon  the  third  and  fourth 
Resolutions.  I  have  pursued  not  the  best  tactics,  perhaps — 
for  I  am,  perhaps,  no  great  tactician — but  the  best  tactics 
in  my  power.  Very  simple  they  have  been.  They  have  con- 
sisted in  attempting  to  obtain  the  assertion,  by  as  many  as 
possible,  of  what  was  valuable  in  itself,  even  although  it  was 
not  the  whole  of  what  seemed  to  me  valuable  or  even  essential. 
On  that  account  I  ranged  my  Resolutions  in  the  order  in  which 
they  stand  ;  and  when  I  found  myself  threatened  with  extinc- 
tion by  the  somewhat  rude  machinery  of  the  Previous  Question, 
so  that  a  free  and  unfettered  discussion,  even  of  the  first 
Resolution  was  to  be  rendered  impossible,  I  came  readily  to  the 
conclusion  that  it  would  not  be  expedient  and  becoming  of  me 
to  ask  you.  Sir,  to  go  through  the  idle  form  of  putting  each  of 
them  in  succession  from  the  Chair,  with  the  certainty  of 
obtaining  the  decision  that  they  should  not  be  put.  But  I 
am  bound  to  say  that  to  the  whole  of  these  Resolutions  I,  as 


GLADSTONE  453 

an  individual,  steadfastly  adhere.  I  ask  no  sanction  from  my 
noble  friend  near  me  (the  Marquis  of  Hartington)  for  anything 
except  that  for  which  he  votes.  I  think  it  would  be  the  meanest 
and  paltriest  act  on  my  part  to  endeavour  to  crib  from  him 
some  indirect  support  for  that  which  he  is  not  prepared  to 
support  overtly.  I  really  know  not  on  what  grounds  he  is 
not  willing  to  accompany  me  in  the  whole  of  these  Resolutions. 
I  would  thankfully  accept  his  aid,  as  I  would  the  aid  of  the 
Government,  for  I  think  the  union  of  the  English  people  in 
this  great  matter  is  an  object  of  the  highest  importance.  There 
is  not  one  of  you  opposite  who  can  more  deeply  deplore  than 
I  do  the  use  of  the  rude  irregular  methods  to  which  we  have 
been  driven  in  order  to  exercise  an  influence  upon  the  foreign 
policy  of  the  country.  I  look  upon  these  methods  as,  at  the 
best,  unsatisfactory  and  imperfect ;  I  look  upon  them,  in  every 
case,  except  of  necessity,  as  vicious  and  bad.  It  has  been  that 
necessity  alone  which  has  driven  us  to  the  point  at  which  we 
stand  to-night.  For  my  part,  I  think  no  day  of  peace  likely 
to  come  from  the  East,  no  final  or  satisfactory  settlement, 
unless  it  be  by  the  authority  of  united  Europe.  I  see  the  hon. 
and  learned  gentleman,  the  Attorney-General,  has  been  com- 
plaining of  violent  language,  and  of  the  imputations  of  motives 
on  my  part.  He  is,  I  suppose,  on  the  way  to  high  judicial 
office,  and  from  one  in  his  position,  as  compared  with  other 
members  of  this  House,  I  have  a  right  to  expect  something 
more  than  the  average  share  of  judicial  temper.  But  what 
said  he  to  his  constituents  ?  I  have  never  imputed  motives 
to  the  Government.  I  have  never  said  they  were  governed 
by  love  of  power.  I  should  have  been  ashamed  of  such  a  state- 
ment. I  cannot,  indeed,  account  for  their  conduct,  except  by 
the  supposition  of  some  singular  delusion,  or  some  sinister 
influence  which  they  do  not  themselves  understand,  and  are 
not  conscious  of,  so  strange  does  it  appear  to  me.  But  never 
have  I  imputed  to  them  motives  inconsistent  with  their  perfect 
honour.  Yet  what  says  the  hon.  and  learned  gentleman  ?  He 
goes  to  his  constituents,  and  to  them  he  announces  that  I  have 
entered  into  a  warfare  against  the  Government,  animated  by  a 
vindictive  malignity  founded  on  my  exclusion  from  office. 
["Oh,  Oh  !  "]  These  are  the  judicial  words  of  the  hon.  and 
learned  gentleman.  I  am  glad  that  he  has  come  into  his  place. 
It  gives  me  the  opportunity  of  expressing  a  hope  that  when  he 


454  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

resigns  that  place  for  one  more  permanent,  more  dignified,  and 
more  enjoyable,  he  will  proceed  in  a  different  spirit  to  deal  with 
the  suitors  and  even  with  the  culprits,  who  may  be  brought 
before  him.  No,  Sir,  I  impute  no  motives.  If  a  word  I  have 
said  seems  to  convey  them,  I  disclaim  it,  and  in  a  moment  I 
would  wash  it  away  ;  but  I  believe  no  such  word  has  passed 
my  lips.  It  is  a  great  crisis,  Sir,  in  which  we  stand.  Legisla- 
tive bodies  are  at  all  times  occupied,  more  or  less,  in  the  making 
of  history,  and  it  is  a  very  grave  passage  in  history  which  we 
are  now  engaged  in  making.  Sir,  there  is  before  us  not  one 
controversy,  but  two.  There  is  the  controversy  between 
Russia  and  Turkey  ;  there  is  the  controversy  between  Turkey 
and  her  revolted  subjects.  I  think  the  Government  and  their 
supporters  out-of-doors  in  the  Press  are  committing  a  great 
error  in  this :  that  it  is  the  first  of  these  two  controversies — 
that  between  Russia  and  Turkey,  which,  after  all,  is  only 
symptomatic — to  which  they  address  their  minds.  In  my 
opinion,  the  other  is  the  deeper  and  more  important.  The 
other  is  a  controversy  which  can  have  no  issue  but  one,  and  I 
do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  the  cause  of  the  revolted  subjects 
of  Turkey  against  their  oppressors  is  as  holy  a  cause  as  ever 
animated  the  breast,  or  as  ever  stirred  the  hand  of  man.  Sir, 
what  part  are  we  to  play  in  regard  to  it  ?  Looking  at  this 
latter  controversy — the  controversy  between  her  and  her  sub- 
jects— the  horrible  massacres  of  last  year,  the  proofs  which 
have  been  afforded  that  they  are  only  parts  and  indications 
of  a  system  ;  that  their  recurrence  is  to  be  expected,  nay,  that 
it  is  a  moral  certainty,  if  they  are  now  allowed  to  pass  with 
impunity  ;  looking  at  the  total  want  of  result  from  Lord 
Derby's  efforts,  at  that  mockery  which  has  been  cast  in  our 
teeth  in  return  for  what  I  quite  admit  was  upon  ordinary  rules 
and  principles  an  insulting  despatch,  can  we.  Sir,  say  with 
regard  to  this  great  battle  of  freedom  against  oppression  which 
is  now  going  on,  which  has  been  renewed  from  time  to  time, 
and  for  which  one-third  of  the  population  of  Bosnia  and 
Herzegovina  are  at  this  moment  not  only  suffering  exile  ;  but, 
terrible  to  say,  are  upon  the  very  verge  of  absolute  starvation  ; 
upon  which  depends  the  fate  of  millions  of  the  subject-races 
that  inhabit  the  Turkish  Empire — can  we,  with  all  this  before 
us,  be  content  with  what  I  will  call  a  vigorous  array  of  remon- 
strances ? — well    intended,   I    grant,  but  without    result,  as 


GLADSTONE  455 

expressing  the  policy  and  satisfying  the  obUgations  of  this 
great  country  ?  Can  we,  I  say,  looking  upon  this  battle,  lay 
our  hands  upon  our  hearts  and,  in  the  face  of  God  and  man, 
say  with  respect  to  it — "  We  have  well  and  sufficiently  per- 
formed our  part  "  ?  Sir,  there  were  other  days,  when  England 
was  the  hope  of  freedom.  Wherever  in  the  world  a  high 
aspiration  was  entertained,  or  a  noble  blow  struck,  it  was  to 
England  that  the  eyes  of  the  oppressed  were  always  turned — 
to  this  favourite,  this  darling  home  of  so  much  privilege  and 
so  much  happiness,  where  the  people  had  built  up  a  noble 
edifice  for  themselves  and  would,  it  was  well  known,  be  ready  to 
do  what  in  them  lay  to  secure  the  benefit  of  the  same  inesti- 
mable boon  for  others.  Cyou  talk  to  me  of  the  estabhshed 
tradition  and  policy  in  regard  to  Turkey.  I  appeal  to  an 
established  tradition,  older,  wiser,  nobler  far — a  tradition  not 
which  disregards  British  interests,  but  which  teaches  you  to 
seek  the  promotion  of  those  interests  in  obeying  the  dictates 
of  honour  and  of  justice.  And,  Sir,  what  is  to  be  the  end  of 
this  ?  Are  we  to  dress  up  the  fantastic  ideas  some  people 
entertain  about  this  policy,  and  that  policy  in  the. garb  of 
British  interests,  and  then,  with  a  new  and  base  idolatry, 
to  fall  down  and  worship  them  T]  Or  are  we  to  look  not  at  the 
sentiment,  but  at  the  hard  facts  of  the  case,  which  Lord  Derby 
told  us  fifteen  years  ago — namely,  that  it  is  the  populations  of 
those  countries  that  will  ultimately  possess  them — that  will 
ultimately  determine  their  abiding  condition  ?  It  is  to  this 
fact,  this  law,  that  we  should  look.  /There  is  now  before  the 
world  a  glorious  prize.  A  portion  oilhose  as  yet  unhappy 
people  are  still  making  an  effort  to  retrieve  what  they  have 
lost  so  long,  but  have  not  ceased  to  love  and  to  desire.  I 
speak  of  those  in  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina.  Another  portion 
— a  band  of  heroes  such  as  the  world  has  rarely  seen — stand 
on  the  rocks  of  Montenegro,  and  are  ready  now,  as  they  have 
ever  been  during  the  400  years  of  their  exile  from  their  fertile 
plains,  to  sweep  down  from  their  fastnesses  and  meet  the  Turks 
at  any  odds  for  the  re-establishment  of  justice  and  peace  in 
those  countries.  Another  portion  still,  the  5,000,000  of  Bul- 
garians, cowed  and  beaten  down  to  the  ground,  hardly  venturing 
to  look  upwards,  even  to  their  Father  in  heaven,  have  extended 
their  hands  to  you  ;  they  have  sent  you  their  petition,  they 
have  prayed  for  your  help  and  protection.     They  have  told 


456  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

you  that  they  do  not  seek  alliance  with  Russia,  or  with  any 
foreign  Power,  but  that  they  seek  to  be  delivered  from  an 
intolerable  burden  of  woe  and  shame.  That  burden  of  woe 
and  shame — the  greatest  that  exists  on  God's  earth — is  one 
that  we  thought  united  Europe  was  about  to  remove  ;  that  in 
the  Protocol  united  Europe  was  pledged  to  remove  ;  but  to 
removing  which  for  the  present,  you  seem  to  have  no  effica- 
cious means  of  offering  even  the  smallest  practical  contribution. 
But,  Sir,  the  removal  of  that  load  of  woe  and  shame  is  a  great 
and  noble  prize.  It  is  a  prize  well  worth  competing  for.  It 
is  not  too  late  to  try  to  win  it.  I  believe  there  are  men  in  the 
Cabinet  who  would  try  to  win  it,  if  they  were  free  to  act  on 
their  own  beliefs  and  aspirations.  It  is  not  too  late,  I  say, 
to  become  competitors  for  that  prize  ;  but  be  assured  whether 
you  mean  to  claim  for  yourselves  even  a  single  leaf  in  that 
immortal  chaplet  of  renown,  which  will  be  the  reward  of  true 
labour  in  that  cause,  or  whether  you  turn  your  backs  upon  that 
cause  and  your  own  duty,  I  believe  for  one,  that  the  knell  of 
Turkish  tyranny  in  those  Provinces  has  sounded.  So  far  as 
human  eye  can  judge,  it  is  about  to  be  destroyed.  The  destruc- 
tion may  not  come  in  the  way,  or  by  the  means  that  we  should 
choose  ;  but  come  this  boon  from  what  hands  it  may,  it  will 
be  a  noble  boon,  and  as  a  noble  boon  will  gladly  be  accepted 
by  Christendom  and  the  world. 


THE   END 


Press  of  Isaac  Pitman  &  Sons,  Bath,  England. 
(2170) 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 
on  the  date  to  which  renewed,  ____^> 
Renewed  books ^ff?tIB]??rToimme3iat^eSM. 


REC'D 


tF 


FEB  27 '64 -8? 


I4Apf64M 


REC'D  L 


|\pRl5'fi4-11  AM 


f^ 


1:^ 


REC'D  LD 


-jjjriv^^^^imjr 


l7Aor'65LL 


APR  .-yg^^PM 


'hirmaUim.. 


IMl'i^  U?gARY 


lk  receipt 


FEB  11  19GG 


A-iy^ 


Wu) 


INTER-LIBRARY 


LOAN 


MAR  2  4  Vj/2 


MAY     2 1987 


ainKAPR    31987 


LD  21A-40rn-ll,'63 
(E1602slO)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


33 


1 


^  / 


YC  01464 
U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


BD03017SbD 


I 


213^53 


©95  Si 


f~rr^'-"-'  ~-' 


